Multiple Penalties

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

Comments about this discussion:

Started 19 Jul 09:34

This is specific to how to deal with multiple penalties that could arrise from stricter rules and how to deal with the potential of multiple players from a single team being sent to the penalty box.

Previous comments by Herbie below

Comment by Herbie Herrmann 6 days ago

At first the rules in 14B.4 Number Of Players should give some more answers.

"A team on the field consists of up to five players with a team requiring a minimum of three players to begin a match." For playing unicycle hockey a minimum of 2 players are reqired, otherwise this team is unable to pass or executed a indirect freeshot.

A team currenly with only 3 player can carry on playing with 2 players in case of injuries or sent offs for 2 min. ("2 players on a 40m field would probably result in very very unusual play", yes unusualy, but should be allowed, perhaps the oposing team has only 3 players left.)

The rules in 14B.4 Number Of Players gives no aswers to following questions:

What should happen to the result (score) of the game if a team not showing or have not enough players to begin a match?
What should happen to the playtime if a team is unable to continue a game because of the shortage of currently allowed numbers of players?
What should happen to the result (score) of this game if a team is unable to finish a game because of the shortage of allowed players?

First ideas:

The score should be 0:10 listed.
The playtime should end at once.
The score should add 10 goals on top against this team in lists of results.

Comment by Nicolai Krieger 3 days ago

Insulting the referees was just an example to ask whether giving several 2min to the same player should be possble. The specific case may warrant a 5min.

Thanks at Herbie for raising these additional questions. I think technically, 1 player is enough to execute a free shot. That player can execute the free shot but cannot keep possession of the ball. For your three questions: I think 1) and 3) should lead to a forfeit and I agree with 2) that game shall be stopped. There may be the case that a team leads by more than 10 goals (or any number we define), so adding a fixed number of goals will always lead to problems (as I think this team should not be able to win this match). Additionally, I think the rulebook should not give any specific numbers on forfeit (similar to play time). Stating in the rules that when a team cannot put the required minimum (1, 2, 3??) on the field, they will lose forfeit should be enough in my opinion.

Comment by Herbie Herrmann 9 hours ago

If a team (already listed in the tournament plan) doesn`t show or is unable to begin a game for the tables and list a result to calculate with is required. The result should not be 0:0. If a game has to end before the nominated playtime runs down this team reponsible for should be punished with an extra load of goals to calculate with.

If a player was already sent of and if this player should be punished for Insulting or backchat should be added and the player has to sit longer in the penalty box for cooling down. E.g. 2 min direct followed by plus 2 min would be logical and consequential to me, I would agree.

Comment 19 Jul 09:35

Original location
https://iuf-rulebook-2025.committees.unicycling-software.com/discussions/177

Comment 19 Jul 17:20

As I assume this proposal builds on Proposal 89 (penalty box clarification), I suggest to do a new sub-heading for the multiple penalties. Building on my comment in Discussion 177, I suggest the following. However, I have a few additional comments / suggestions / questions:

I very much like the suggestion to not allow less than three players, as it also enables a team with few players to continue playing and we do not need any forfeit rule or similar. However, I think the first player that would finish their penalty should return to play while the "new" offender should be sent off. I'll have a try for a wording below.
We currently require a minimum of 3 players to start a game. However, with requiring always 3 players on the field, that team may never be able to serve a penalty. So we need to change either of these rules. My spontaneous suggestion would be to require at least 4 players for a team to begin a match (would require a change in 14B.4 Number Of Players (if it still has this number / title, I didn't check all passed proposals)). Any other suggestions are very welcome.
We should add a clarifying sentence that a player may receive multiple 2min (and also 5min?) penalties (I added a suggestion below).
I'm not entirely happy with "i.e. once queued penalties have become active", as I think it does not really clarify. queued penalties become active before only one player remains in the penalty box. For now, I would suggest to remove that part of the sentence.
changed one "may" to "shall" (bold below)
Formatting and what is added by this proposal is not super clear, please adapt if possible (e.g. that only brackets are added in penalty box rule from Proposal 89 ?!).

I put my new suggestions in bold:

14B.9.5.4 Multiple penalties

A team may receive any number of 2-minute, 5-minute or match penalties during a game, and individual players may be given multiple 2-minute or 5-minute penalties, including while already serving a previous penalty. However, no team may serve more than two penalties simultaneously, nor may any player serve more than one penalty simultaneously. Any penalty assessed while two penalties are already active becomes queued. The penalised player must enter the penalty box immediately, but their penalty time does not begin until one of the active penalties has expired. When simultaneous penalties result in one or more being queued, the captain shall select the order that penalties will be served, however, shorter penalties shall precede longer penalties.

When serving penalties, a team may never be reduced to fewer than three players on the field. If a penalty would reduce the team to fewer than three players, and a substitute is available, the penalised player enters the penalty box, their penalty is queued, and a substitute takes their place on the field. If no substitute is available, the player whose penalty would expire first shall return to play, and the player who committed the most recent foul shall serve both the remaining time of the returning player’s penalty plus the full duration of their own penalty. The team may not return to four players until only one player remains in the penalty box~~, i.e. once queued penalties have become active~~. If a player’s penalty expires while two other penalties are still being served, that player may return to the team bench but shall not enter the field during active play.

If a player who is already serving a penalty in the penalty box receives an additional penalty, the penalties shall be served consecutively, not simultaneously. The timer for the first penalty continues without interruption, and the second penalty begins only once the first has expired.

Comment 20 Jul 02:35

We currently require a minimum of 3 players to start a game. However, with requiring always 3 players on the field, that team may never be able to serve a penalty. So we need to change either of these rules. My spontaneous suggestion would be to require at least 4 players for a team to begin a match (would require a change in 14B.4 Number Of Players (if it still has this number / title, I didn't check all passed proposals)). Any other suggestions are very welcome.

This is a real issue, and technically one that is still an issue in our rulebook even without any rule changes from this rulebook. What happens if 5 people get sin binned in a single team? Does the team have 0 players?

If no substitute is available, the player whose penalty would expire first shall return to play, and the player who committed the most recent foul shall serve both the remaining time of the returning player’s penalty plus the full duration of their own penalty.

I dont mind this, that wording is clear and I think this could be a little fairer.

I would lean towards changing the minimum number that a team can have on the field after send offs to 2 instead of 3 and Keep the minimum number required to start a match as 3. Ice hockey have minimum of 3 on but they also have 6. total.

I think there are times where a good team of 3 can still win matches so a requirement of 4 seems too high. In the Australian league we had a tournament yesterday where 3 teams only had 4 because they borrowed a player from the local club teams. But even with three those teams would have beat the two teams of 5.

Also I think the minimum number of players would be solved by having termination of penalties because a team down to 2 players or 1 player would almos t certainly result in a goal and would mean the team with multiple sin binnings would receive a player back again..

Comment 20 Jul 09:48

Please keep in mind, nearly every player age 12 and above should understand these rules. The above rules you are discussing are for expert referrees only.

Keep it as simple as it is. Running short in numbers of allowed players, exclude multiple injuries in a game, is the fault of this team. A sent off for 2 min is a punishment and should not expire or shorted for what ever reason. > simple and strict rulling!

Proposal 89 Last version "... Any unexpired penalty at the end of regular time shall remain in effect during extra time. When extra time is complete, all penalties except match penalties shall be considered terminated."

better: "... Any unexpired penalty at the end of regular time shall remain in effect during extra time and necessary Penalty Shootout. When extra time and Penalty Shootout is complete, all penalties except match penalties shall be considered terminated." This wording would cover a shortage of players due to penalties, and if a team has only 2 players left this team would have only 2 out of 3 penalty shots. > simple and strict rulling, the teams have to take into account in their behavior to play.

Comment 21 Jul 02:44

I believe this proposal would benefit opinions of others. I cannot guarantee this is the best way to approach this.

Comment 23 Jul 13:33

@Herbie: No, this is one of the rules, only referees (which are usually age 16 or older) or the time keeper have to understand. As a player, you do not have to mind about this rule.

I see the point with not changing the minimum number of players necessary to start a game. However, for me this is not enough to reduce the minimum players to 2 and I would prefer to keep that number at 3 (except for a team of 3). I would go for an exception for teams of only 3 players, where they shall continue with 2 players and never less than 2 players. Maybe the following would work although its not explicitely written how it works with 3 players? Changes are only made in second paragraph, but I copied the entire rules for context. I kept my previous chages in bold as they show differences compared to proposal:

When serving penalties, a team shall maintain at least three players on the field whenever possible; however, any team serving penalties must have at least one player in the penalty box at all times. If an additional penalty would reduce the team to fewer than three players, and a substitute is available, the penalised player enters the penalty box, their penalty is queued, and a substitute takes their place on the field. If no substitute is available, the player whose penalty would expire first shall return to play, and the player who committed the most recent foul shall serve both the remaining time of the returning player’s penalty plus the full duration of their own penalty. The team may not return to four players until only one player remains in the penalty box. If a player’s penalty expires while two other penalties are still being served, that player may return to the team bench but shall not enter the field during active play.

Comment 24 Jul 01:51

"As a player, you do not have to mind about this rule."!!!

Comment 24 Jul 02:10

Stricter penalties

"The following list of offences lead to a 2-minute penalty..." > Increases from 7 to 16 listet offences plus "...however, this list is not exhaustive."

"...but may still lead to a free shot." + "...but does not automatically warrant a 2-minute penalty." +"The referee shall issue a warning to the captain on the first offence."

>>> ""As a player, you do not have to mind about this rule."???

Comment 24 Jul 02:24

@Herbie

The point Nicolai is making is that as a player, you do not need to know the inner workings of the rule to play hockey. You only need to understand that you can be sent off for breaking the rules, in the occasion that you are sent off, the referee should know the rule to instruct you on what will happen.

Only a referee needs to know how the rule is facilitated.

The ice hockey rulebook used for under 13s is 221 pages

the rugby league rulebook for under 13s is 76 pages

The football rulebook used for under 13s is 116 pages.

Even at an elite level I doubt the players have read it, at a lower level they definitely haven't. You do not need to understand the rules to that degree unless refereeing.

Herbie: Please keep in mind, nearly every player age 12 and above should understand these rules. The above rules you are discussing are for expert referees only.

12 year olds do not need to understand the inner workings of all rules to play hockey. They only need to understand the inner workings to referee.

I would think that at least 15% of the A comp, more than 50% of the B comp and 98% of the comp at UNICON have not read the rulebook. This does not stop them taking part. I would love for more to have read it, but it is clear that most do not understand the innerworkings of all rules.

I am certain, if you asked most players, they would not know what happens if someone is sent off for the remainder of a match without looking it up (they probably don't know that the offending player also misses the following match).

My opinion is that 12 year olds should not be refereeing matches where the outcome of the game is so important that 5 players are sent off from a single team. I have never seen a high stakes match reffed by someone under 17, even in the B comp I don't remember it.

To suggest that 12 year olds need to understand the innerworkings of all rules to play the sport ignores how every sport in the world currently runs their rulebooks.

Comment 24 Jul 02:37

"The following list of offences lead to a 2-minute penalty..." > Increases from 7 to 16 listet offences plus "...however, this list is not exhaustive."

"...but may still lead to a free shot." + "...but does not automatically warrant a 2-minute penalty." +"The referee shall issue a warning to the captain on the first offence."

>>> ""As a player, you do not have to mind about this rule."???

@Herbie
I think all of the listed offences on the list were already offences that could lead to a free shot against the player. A player does not need to know any new fouls than they already knew.

A player doesn't need to know which fouls will result in a send-off and which will result in a free shot. ALL are against the rules.

You are implying that players will specifically perform fouls that only result in a free shot and not a send off. Why would a player need to know the differences between the fouls. ALL are against the rules so they should be performing NONE of them?

A referee needs to know the differences between these things to make the correct ruling. But Nicolai said a player does not need to know the detail and I believe that is 100% correct.

Comment 26 Jul 04:22

Knowing the rules - Let`s play with some Stevens figures. Ice hockey, rugby and football are sports million of people are playing. On elite level this sports have professional or semi-professional referrees. Unicycle hockey played by around 2000 people around the world. On UNICONS in A-level playing 6-8 teams, so around 50 players only. ("I would think that at least 15% of the A comp, more than 50% of the B comp and 98% of the comp at UNICON have not read the rulebook. This does not stop them taking part. I would love for more to have read it, but it is clear that most do not understand the innerworkings of all rules.[I underline this sentence.]") With goodwill in your calculation only up to 10 A-level players would know and understand the rules so far. This was the pool of good referrees came from - a pool out of volenteering players doing the job of a referree - there is a need of 2 referrees per game. I have recognized more complaints on bad referring in "A" in relation to "B"-level. Your answer: "But Nicolai said a player does not need to know the detail and I believe that is 100% correct." Do the other voters believe as well with a thicker rulebook more players would read and understand the new rules and more players would volenteer now for referring?

Comment 26 Jul 17:54

My text says I estimate 15% have not read the rulebook. If 85% of A have read the rulebook that means 42/50 players understand it, not 10.

Do the other voters believe as well with a thicker rulebook more players would read and understand the new rules and more players would volenteer now for referring?

This rule could be an issue in our current rulebook. What would you do if 4-5 people from a single team got sent off at the same time in a match?

If making the rules clearer by adding words is detrimental to people refereeing well, why don't we go back to one of the old rulebooks? The 1998 rulebook is a simple 4 pages.

1998 Rulebook

Also for comparison Unicycle Basketball uses 8 pages of unicycle rules plus the 105 pages of international basketball rulebook. We don't need 113 pages of rules, that's probably 5x longer than what we have currently, but this is the first paragraph in their rules.

In IUF competition, unicycle basketball is played using the international rules for regular basketball (the currently valid FIBA rules, http://www.fiba.basketball/documents) with a few changes. The items below, in combination with standard international basketball rules, are what are used for Unicon competitions.

Comment 27 Jul 03:29

The comparison to basketball gives a good insight. In fact we have a really short rulebook. Also younger referees can read an comprehend it. The extended list of 2-min-penalties helps all referees and players to identify cases in which these penalties are valid to give and respectively to receive.

Comment 27 Jul 03:47

Let finish the sidesteps. Unicycle Basketball is an add on basket ball. Unicycle hockey is not an add on Hockey, Ice Hockey or floorbal, it is unic. I excuse, I mixed my personal impression that only 15% of A-level players would be able to be a good referree.

The reviewing of this proposal will end today. Here my last chance to warn you:

"When serving penalties, a team may never be reduced to fewer than three players on the field." This the creation of a bad grey box. E.g. A team starts with only 3 players could never be punished with sent offs.

This rule becomes a wild card or a card blanche to carry on fouls knowing the punishment is limitated.

"What would you do if 4-5 people from a single team got sent off at the same time in a match?"

I suggested a week before: "What should happen to the playtime if a team is unable to continue a game because of the shortage of currently allowed numbers of players?" - "The playtime should end at once." and "Keep it as simple as it is. Running short in numbers of allowed players, exclude multiple injuries in a game, is the fault of this team. A sent off for 2 min is a punishment and should not expire or shorted for what ever reason. > simple and strict rulling!"

Comment 27 Jul 04:45

Thanks for the feedback Herbie. I don't intend to call for votes for this tomorrow. This needs more discussion before it is finalized. I'll respond to Herbie's comments when I get the chance

Comment 27 Jul 20:18

So we have potentially 3-4 options to try and cope with what happens if an entire team is sent off at the same time. I do think we need something in place for this, or we could have issues.

Options

1. We had proposed a minimum of 3 always on field, meaning if you get a third person sent off the team does not go below 3 players but the team has longer without their two players. We did not have an agreement about whether the third person who is being sent off switches with the player who was going to come on next, or whether the third person sent off remains on the field and the people already sent off take their time. Issues with this proposal is that 3 people are allowed to start a match as a legal team, and no one would ever be sent off.

2. We could do almost everything from number 1, however make the minimum on field through penalties as 2 players. So even a legal team of 3 will have someone sent off and be down to 2.

3. We can change the rule so that if a team gets all players sent off, the team immediately forfeits. Only real downside to this is that you could essentially create a situation where you have 1 vs 5 for up to two minutes, as there is no minimum on the field. There is nothing technically wrong with this as Nicolai said, the single person can still play a penalty, they just can't regather it.

4. We can look closer at early termination of penalties when goals are scored, this would likely also solve the problem.

I don't think the length of our rulebook is a deterrent to whatever option we choose we should choose whatever works best to solve the issue and keeps the game exciting to play/watch.

I am happy with 2, 3 and 4. I think 1 won't work.

I feel we can't use 4 as it is an entirely different rule proposal that I don't think we have support for. So potentially we should look at options 2 or 3.

Comment 28 Jul 01:32

I think there are even more than the four options mentioned — after all, options 1 and 2 could also be modified so that the team that falls below 3 or 2 players forfeits immediately.

All in all, my preferred option would actually be a combination of 2 and 3, i.e., a minimum number of players required, and if this number is fallen short of, the team in question loses. However, I would not set this minimum number to 1 player (as in option 3), but rather to 2 (but I would alse be fine with 3).

Comment 28 Jul 04:20

Having the minimum set at 1 means that a team of 3 who can legally start a match and most likely make it through the entire match. I think it would be hard for any team of 3 to successfully complete a match if a single send off meant they had to forfeit. Particularly with stricter rules. Is there much benefit to forfeiting a team if they can still technically play the match? The team vs-ing them may prefer to continue against a team of 2 rather than win outright

I wrote this wording as the most simple proposal I can think of. The final sentence is essentially rewording of Herbies idea

if proposal 89 passes

14B.9.5 Player Send-off

The referee can send a player off the field for two minutes, five minutes, or for the remainder of the game.

If a player from the team in possession of the ball commits an offence warranting a 2-min, 5-min, or match penalty, the referee shall immediately interrupt the game and impose the penalty. If a player from the team not in possession commits the offence, play shall continue until the offending team gains control of the ball, at which point play is stopped (including stoppage of timer) and the penalty assessed.

In instances of a penalty, the offending team must play with one fewer than their legal maximum for the duration of the penalty, or until the end of the current match, whichever comes first (see 14B.9.7 Multiple penalties). Any unexpired penalty at the end of regular time shall remain in effect during extra time and also any penalty shootout (14B.5.2) if applicable. All penalties except match penalties shall be considered terminated only after the final result of the match is determined, including any penalty shootout if applicable.

...

14B.9.5.3 Match Penalty

When a player is sent off for the remainder of the game, they may not take part in the current match and their team's following match. However, in the current match, the penalised team may bring a player on after a five minute period. The offending player is removed from the match but does not enter the penalty box. A non-penalised player, selected by the offending team’s captain, must serve the five-minute penalty in the penalty box. If the captain is unable to select a player, the referees shall choose one. Once the five-minute penalty has expired, that player may return to the field.

The following list of offences lead to a match penalty; however, this list is not exhaustive.

[List of offences in strict proposal number 69...]

14B.9.5.4 Multiple penalties

A team may receive any number of 2-minute, 5-minute or match penalties during a game, and individual players may be given multiple 2-minute or 5-minute penalties, including while already serving a previous penalty. No player may serve more than one penalty simultaneously. If a player who is already serving a penalty in the penalty box receives an additional penalty, the penalties shall be served consecutively, not simultaneously. The timer for the first penalty continues without interruption, and the second penalty begins only once the first has expired. If the enforcement of a penalty would result in the team having no remaining players on the field, the team shall forfeit the match.

Comment 05 Aug 10:39

Please put the corresponding proposal to a vote or set it aside.