14B.9.1 Free Shot (Closed for comments)

Comments about this discussion:

Started 14 Mar 19:32

The previous rulebook committee (https://iuf-rulebook-2022.committees.unicycling-software.com/discussions/24) discussed the possibility of allowing direct free shots, replacing the current rule requiring an indirect shot. This change is proposed to increase goal-scoring opportunities, particularly for free shots close to the goal, and to enhance strategic depth. However, concerns regarding safety, fairness, and unintended game dynamics were also raised. This summary captures the key arguments, potential issues, and next steps for further consideration.

Potential Benefits of Allowing Direct Free Shots
- Increased Scoring Opportunities: A direct free shot provides a higher chance of scoring, particularly from close-range fouls.
- Strategic Complexity: Teams may approach free shots differently, increasing tactical variety.
- Consistency with Other Sports: Floorball, for example, allows direct free shots, and many players instinctively expect them.
- Encourages Defensive Discipline: Teams would need to be more careful to avoid fouls in dangerous areas.
Concerns and Counterarguments
- Game Balance Issues: Allowing direct free shots could make them more effective than corner shots, which may distort the risk-reward balance of fouls in the goal area.
- Safety Risks: Unopposed, high-power shots could increase the likelihood of injuries, particularly for defending players.
- Increased Bruising Potential: With no need for a quick pass before shooting, defenders would be exposed to more powerful shots.
- Impact on Lower-Skilled Teams: Stronger teams could benefit disproportionately, reducing competitive balance in mismatched games.
Alternative Solutions Considered
- Modifying Corner Rules: Ensuring corners remain as or more advantageous than a free shot from outside the goal area.
- Testing in Tournaments: Instead of immediate rule adoption, trialing the change in competitive play before making a decision.
- Differentiating Free Shot Types: Some sports allow direct shots only for fouls but not for out-of-bounds situations. However, this could complicate the rules unnecessarily.
Testing and Data Collection
- Informal training tests suggested minimal impact on gameplay in most situations.
- Further structured testing during official tournaments is recommended to assess practical effects and player reception.
- Player surveys in different regions (Switzerland, Australia, Germany) have shown mixed opinions, with some regions favoring the change and others opposing it.

In my opinion, the potential benefits outweigh the counterarguments.

Comment 15 Mar 06:23

There are a lot of new faces on this rulebook committee who were not involved in the previous discussions, so it would be good to get some new opinions.

My gut feel is this will break the game more than improve it. Receiving a penalty within the 6.5 will be a worse result than receiving a penalty at 6.6m out because you have almost no ability to score from the corner directly but you can from 6.6m out. Receiving a penalty 6.6m out from goal that you can directly shoot at goal is essentially the same as receiving a 6.5m penalty, except now the other team would be forced to pack their players in front of your player and your player can slap shot as hard as they want with no time pressure from a moving defender. Receiving penalties 6.6m would be too overpowered, and receiving a penalty corner is too underpowered for this to work, in my opinion.

Floorballs are less than half the weight of tennis ball, meaning less concern of injury, and from what I can see floorball doesn't appear to have a corner ball meaning they don't have the issue of getting a worse result if you receive a penalty in the goal area. I do not think this rule should be brought in if unless we fix the issue of making corners worse.

I believe the discussion of changing all penalties to be taken at the point they were committed, except for ensuring they are X distance out from the goal line, and keeping penalty shots as indirect could be a better result. The attacking team have more options than if they received a corner. They can pass the ball in four directions, opening up their options but it doesn't give them the equivalent of 6.5m penalty shot which I think would be the case with the direct shot on goal

https://iuf-rulebook-2022.committees.unicycling-software.com/discussions/75

Comment 15 Mar 06:24

Has any league used this rule for a reasonable number of games to confirm that it won't break the game?

Comment 19 Mar 09:52

I followed the old discussions and I can go with

- move the the corner shot to the edge or side of the 6.5m line,

- change distances from 1m to 1.5m or 2.0m to have more freedom in exicuting the free shot.

I prefer all normal free shots keeping as an indirect shot, the 6.5m penalty shot keeping as an direct shot.

Comment 21 Mar 08:52

At our last training session we trialled playing free shots from the point of infringement instead of taking corners, while still keeping them indirect. Its doable but there would need to be some discussion abvout what to do when the ball is very close to goal.

Nicolai have you played direct shots in any tournaments?

Comment 23 Mar 11:19

No, I don't have any experience with direct free shots. I could try to get the national team of Switzerland to test this in 2 weeks. However, this would be after we have to send this to a proposal.

In most hockey variants, there are either no free shots at all (e.g. ice hockey), or direct free shots are allowed (e.g. floorball). I think it is somewhat weird that in unicycle hockey direct free shots are not allowed. In principle, the defending team could try to mark all the other players and leave the goal completely empty.

I just checked the floorball rules and they do it the following way:
"The free-hit shall be taken where the offence was committed, but never behind the imaginary extensions of the goal lines, or closer to the goalkeeper areas than 3.5 m. [...]
A free-hit closer to the board than 1.5 m may be moved out to this distance.
A free-hit behind the imaginary extension of the goal line shall be taken from the nearest face-off dot.
A free-hit closer to the goalkeeper area than 3.5 m shall be moved out to the distance of 3.5 m [...]"

I think this would all work in unicycle hockey (with some adaptations of the distances).

Comment 24 Mar 05:29

Nicolai, thanks for the great summary!

We tried direct free shots once in training, not in a game or tournaments yet. As far, the impact on gameplay was not that big. That may change in tournament.

If we allow direct free shots, we have to adjusts corners too. I would like to remember you on the field hockey corner variant "short corner/penalty corner". I am not fond of free shots with in the 6.5m/goalzone. I think we should distinguish (with different referee hand signs?) between free shots after fouls (direct) and ball out of bounds (indirect).

All in all I am rather against direct free shots.

Ciao Ole

Comment 24 Mar 12:08

If we like to change the free shot fron indirect to direct this will corse a lot of trouble an extra work inventing more rules for seperate positions on the playing field. And for what a benefit? Would this be a major change of how to play or not - this should be more tested and gather more experiences in fun tournaments. I Time is short I believe we should discuss this matter on next iuf-rulebook.

I still prefer all normal free shots keeping as an indirect shot, only the special 6.5m penalty shot we should keep as an direct shot.

Would someone like to discuss on "move the the corner shot to the edge or side of the 6.5m line? If yes, we should open an independent discussion on this matter.

Comment 25 Mar 05:07

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 25 Mar 14:54

I agree that this should be tested first before adding such a rule.

I also feel that the risk of injuries is too high which would make it a No-Go for me.

Comment 25 Mar 15:01

I think the idea of a direct free shot is good, I think it's difficult to define where there's a free shot or corner ball. I think the game could become more exciting, players would have to play cleaner to prevent dangerous free shots. I think the game could get more exciting, players would have to play cleaner to prevent dangerous free-kicks, and because teams want to prevent the more dangerous free shots it leads to more safety in the game. And there could be lots of new tactics for free shots, which would make the game more exciting.

I think the risk of injury is not much higher with a direct free shot, yes a tennis ball certainly hurts but I've never experienced an injury from a tennis ball, in Unicycle-hockey. And there's always a risk of injury in Unicycle-hockey.

Comment 28 Mar 13:50

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.

In my opinion direct free shots will be a benefit for all. I agree with Nicolai and Nicolas.

I think all free shots outside of the goal area should be direct shots. In the goal area we can keep the current corner rule.

If we want to do direct shots also in the goal area we can do it like soccer. A foul in the goal area between the 6.5m and the extended goal line is automatically a 6.5m or a Goalkeepers ball and a foul behind the goal is a Corner or a goalkeepers ball. in this case the rules are simple without many different distances and we dont have the problem of a slap shot close to the goalkeeper. And the teams will play more carfulluy in the goalarea to prevent a 6.5m. Thsr also prevents injury.

Comment 28 Mar 15:47

"I've never experienced an injury from a tennis ball, in Unicycle-hockey." - lucky man. My goalie from my team recives a sport pension due to a tennis ball hits hard from near distance her eye. Why wearing ice hockey players helmets with eye protection shields? We wearing field hockey players for a coerner ball temporarily face shields? Why wearing swiss goalie a lot of boddy protections? - the risk of injuries is high if you expect e hard shot. "If we always say we don't have any experience" - I disagree, we have!

Direct free shot "there could be lots of new tactics for free shots" - yes it will, it will also need more protaction for every player who has to defend. It will not benifit this sport - it would be the start of an other sport.

If I would be allowd to vote I would disagree.

Comment 28 Mar 21:13

I am against direct free shots until someone creates a semi-serious tournament to test it and shows that it works. I have heard of Herbies teammate who is partially blinded in one eye from a tennis ball to the eye. So there is definitely a danger element.

We currently are split roughly 50-50 on voting members for this

Comment 29 Mar 04:21

Closing for now, as there seems not enough support and in my opinion that is the only rule change we discussed so far where we really need to test it. I believe that there are more important rule changes suggested that also would benefit the game more, so we should focus on them.