Right of Way – Prioritization Instead of Enumeration
Comments about this discussion:
Started
I would like to propose that we revise 14B.8.2 Right of Way from a list into a prioritization. Additionally, I would suggest adding more information regarding idling players, as I don’t think the current interpretation is correct. My proposed revision would be as follows:
14B.8.2 Right Of Way
The following rules apply when riders come into contact with each other:
1. No player may endanger another player by forcing them to give way. This should be penalised particularly in the area near the walls. If a distance of one metre is maintained between the wall and the defender, this can be taken as an indication that no forcing or pushing off has occurred.
2. A player who is idling or resting on the stick must be evaded. It is not sufficient for the wheel to simply stop moving for a short moment; the player must be in a clearly resting position, including both body and stick. The idling or resting player must ensure the stick does not SUB players as per rule 14B.8.3.
3. The leading of two players riding next to each other may choose the direction of
turns. If both are evenly side-by-side, the one in possession of the ball may choose
the direction.
4. If two players are approaching each other directly or at an obtuse angle, both must
take care to avoid contact. If contact occurs, the referee will penalise the player
deemed to have caused the contact. A foul under the right of way rules does not necessarily require a crash or fall to occur.
Comment
So far, I always interpreted the list as a priorization with the first point being the most important and then less and less important. However, I think that this is not entirely clear from the current rules and I would be in favor of including one sentence that makes this more clear.
I would be okay with most of the suggested additions, but also think they are not really necessary and are already implicitely included in the current rules (e.g. stopping just for a short moment would then be against 1: forcing them to give way). Specifically, the last sentence added to 4) contradicts the very first sentence in the right of way rules: "The following rules apply when riders come into contact with each other" and "A foul under the right of way rules does not necessarily require a crash or fall to occur".
Comment
Similar to Nicolai. the 1. point is the general rule and the 2. point is the assumption of point one and important for been a defender. The 3. and 4. point explaining different other situations may happens more often. For all other situations questioning the right of way we have the 5. point ("In all cases not mentioned above, it is up to the referee to make a decision.") I can`t recognize a real need for improment of the current rules.