Timeout
Comments about this discussion:
Started
In many other sports, teams have to opportunity to take a short time out for tactical reasons.
I think it would be nice, if this was also possible in unicycle hockey and I started this discussion also in the previous rulebook (https://iuf-rulebook-2022.committees.unicycling-software.com/discussions/63). However, the support from the other committee members was not really there.
I would still like to raise this discussion as in Switzerland, we have the opportunity to take one and I would say the effect of this is generally positive, both on the teams and as a spectator. Why allowing taking a time-out could be beneficial:
-
Tactical Adjustments – A timeout allows teams to reassess their strategy, make tactical changes, or adapt to the opponent’s playstyle in real time.
-
Regaining Composure – If a team is under pressure or losing momentum, a timeout offers a chance to reset mentally and regain focus.
-
Short Rest – A short break can help players gain breath, reducing fatigue-related mistakes and potential injuries.
-
Final Push in Close Matches – In the final minutes of a close game, a timeout can be used to organize a decisive play or defensive strategy.
-
Encouraging Team Communication – Fast-paced play can limit in-game communication. A timeout ensures all players receive instructions and align on key tactics.
I would suggest to keep such a time-out short (e.g. 30s or 1 min) and only allow it in knock-out games (e.g. half-finals and finals) to minimize delay in schedule. If teams are not interested in taking the time-out, there will be no damage in adding this rule. However, adding the option could be beneficial for a team that prepared well.
Comment
My opinion is that a time-out does indeed offer tactical adjustments, regaining composure, short rest, final push in close matches, and encouraging team communication.
I don't believe that stopping the game for those things is beneficial to the game, however. I don't really see how slowing down the game makes the game better to watch, and I feel that the better team would be able to do those things within the game, so why do we help the worse team by allowing them to try and use a timeout to change the flow of the game.
If others are in favour, then I am still happy for it to go to a vote
Comment
I like Nicolai's suggestion and generally agree with it. A tactical timeout could indeed add value to unicycle hockey, particularly if it is kept short (e.g., 30 seconds to a maximum of one minute) and permitted exclusively in knockout games (e.g., semifinals and finals). This would not significantly impact tournament schedules, as leagues like the German Unicycle Hockey League rarely include knockout games.
Experience from other sports, such as ice hockey or field hockey, shows that short tactical timeouts are positively received and can enhance both the quality of play and overall excitement. In field hockey, for instance, short timeouts of up to one minute per half have proven effective.
From my personal experience, I can confirm that it can sometimes be very helpful to briefly discuss tactical adjustments with the team. Therefore, I support introducing such tactical timeouts for knockout-stage matches.
Comment
I agree with Steven that I don't see how time-outs make the game better to watch. On the contrary, I would say that they take away the flow and excitement in watching, especially since you wouldnt have insight in the teams discussion, it would just be a pause from the game from a spectators perspective.
In general though, I would say that the spectator's perspective should play the least role in adjusting the rules and tournament modes.
But even from a team perspective, I would say that the half-time is enough to provide the necessary inputs, and a coach or substitute player can also provide impulses from outside. Since the length of a game is relatively short anyway, and since in close games there are more time-outs ordered by the referees to talk things over, I would say that further time-outs would tend to chop up the flow of the game and the players locked-in state in an unpleasant way.
Comment
I think many sports implement rules to a) make them safer or b) make their games more exciting for spectators (or c) provide breaks for advertising revenue).
Ice hockey has changed their rules repeatedly to make it faster, and more exciting to watch. They implemented the icing rule after teams repeatedly hit the puck down the field for the remainder of games to protect their lead. One game the winning team iced the puck 50 times to protect their lead. Fans were outraged and threw things onto the field, and they brought in the icing rule.
They also have a delay of game penalty that gives 2 minute penalty to a player for hitting the puck out of play on purpose, we definitely don't have that rule with teams using that tactic in end game situations. These rule changes suggest to me that making a game exciting to watch is important.
Although ice hockey has a time-out, in my opinion having the play stop and allowing teams to talk strategy is not really a positive.
Only my opinion, but the better team should be able to work out what is needed during the game. If a team is losing, and they have to stop the game and talk amongst each other to then win, I do wonder if they actually deserve to win.
An interesting article on time outs. I don't think it necessarily provides any answer on whether we should include them, but it does give some stats on how they have been implemented in ice hockey.
https://hockey-graphs.com/2020/05/28/quantifying-the-value-of-an-nhl-timeout-using-survival-analysis-part-1/
Comment
Hi Steven, the above link was no helper for me. I go with Fin
The spectator's perspective should play the least role.
The half-time is enough to provide the necessary inputs and
a coach or substitute player can also provide impulses from outside.
The length of a game is relatively short.
And going with Steven that the better team would be able to do those things within the game, so why do we help the worse team by allowing them to try and use a timeout to change the flow of the game.
No new time-out rule.
Comment
Thank Steven for this very interesting article! This has some very insightful perspectives, although I'm not sure we can directly transfer this to unicycle hockey.
As suggested, the timeout would only come to play in knock-out games. These are usually longer (e.g. UNICON finals were mostly 2x20min). Even in 10min a lot can happen and the discussions from the half-time can be moot. I'm not sure how a coach or substitute player can properly provide any impulses when the game is still continuing. Moreover, in unicycle hockey, only very few teams have a coach and consequently communication is mostly not one-way but rather a discussion. This is impossible to do during the game.
You both ask the question why we should help the worse team. To make the game more interesting for the spectators! Close games are much more fun to watch than those that are already decided.
Comment
"I'm not sure how a coach or substitute player can properly provide any impulses when the game is still continuing." I am sure I can and I do it (shout loudly to my team! "
Moreover, in unicycle hockey, only very few teams have a coach and consequently communication is mostly not one-way but rather a discussion. This is impossible to do during the game." The team captain will do it (certainly only abbreviated discussionons possible) on the playing field or next to it. (for e.g. changing the team set up, changing responsibilities to particular oponant players or tactical behaviars) - I do so!
Comment
Our playing time is relative short. There is a half time break to discuss strategy. I don't think we need timeouts.
Comment
There's quite something to discuss here and very little to no time to test it, let alone thoroughly. We won't be able to come to a conclusion here in less than a week.
I suggest not including this topic for this years round of proposals as there are many other pressing things to discuss.
Comment
I think its time to bring our sport forward. So we have to try new things and not only discuss wordings from old rules. If we always say we don't have any experience so we can't change the Rules we don't need a rulebook commitee anymore.
I agree we don't need a time out in games less then 12min halftime or schort games with 1x12min or something like that. And i also agree that we don't need a timeout in every match. Because then you can`'t make a shedule for a Tournament. But in long games like 2x15min or 2x20min i thik we need a timeout.
As Nicolai said in the Beginning in switzerland we have one timeout per Tournament. Nearly every team in Switzerland have a coach but in close games it's impossibel to change the tactic during the game. The expirience in Swizerland shows us that with a short timeout games became exciting again.
In this case i think we need the Following new Rule.
Each team can take a short Timout (1min) in each knock-out game. (Half-Final, Final, and Placement games)
Comment
Ok we have 3 people interested in a timeout.
We have 4 people not interested in a timeout.
However two of the no's are non voting members so although their opinion is useful to understand how people feel it wouldnt affect a vote.
It would be good to get a final indication of voting members who play hockey. I believe Nicolas and Ryan Wood would probably be in the yes camp but it would be good to know Larissa Bartenlarissa and Malte Voelkel's thoughts.
If we looked at voting members who play hockey the vote could be 5-4 or 7-2 in favour, depending on Larissa and Maltes opinions.
This would give a good indication of if we should proceed with the vote.
I would like to restrict it to knockout games if it is implemented.
Comment
I would support a timeout provided it was maximum one per half, short duration (like one minute) and probably just limited to quarterfinals, semis and finals.