14B.9.5 Penalty box: Termination
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
In the previous rulebook (https://iuf-rulebook-2022.committees.unicycling-software.com/discussions/45) and at EUHC2023, we had the discussion about terminating the penalty box. The suggestion is that 2-minute penalties should end immediately if the opposing team scores a goal. The motivation behind this change is to increase the game’s pace and allow for stricter enforcement of fouls.
Here's a very brief summary from the previous discussions:
Several participants argued that 2-minute penalties are rare and significant in unicycle hockey, unlike in ice hockey, where such penalties are more common for minor fouls. Some expressed concern that allowing players to return early after a goal could diminish the seriousness of penalties and encourage more fouls. Others suggested that more frequent 2-minute penalties could be beneficial, allowing for a clearer distinction between minor and major fouls.
It was agreed that this rule would only apply to 2-minute penalties and not 5-minute penalties, which should still be served in full (similar to ice hockey).
Additionally, I will start a separate discussion about making the rules stricter, focusing on enhancing penalty enforcement in general. Although these discussions are related, I would like to keep them apart.
Comment
I agree and think this would be a good change and also improve referee's ability to call infringements without the fear of "drastically altering the result"
Comment
I go with "2-minute penalties are rare and significant in unicycle hockey, unlike in ice hockey, where such penalties are more common for minor fouls. Some expressed concern that allowing players to return early after a goal could diminish the seriousness of penalties and encourage more fouls."
There needs more training of the referees. They should more dare in using 2-minute penalties.
Comment
Lets say the there's a attacking player who would score a goal now and i just push him off the unicycle. 2 mins because intentional but not dangerous. Good for my team because, the goal didn't happen. But then 30 secs later they still score a goal (because we are only 4 now it's of course easier for them) and i get back in. So my intentional foul would only lead to a 30 sec penalty.
I don't think that thats a good thing. If i get a 2 min, it is well deserved.
Also i wanna shine a light on mismatched games. It's often the case, that there's one better player among beginners. The better player now get's a 2 min. The whole team crumbles, maybe 10 seconds later it will concede a goal. Then the better player can go back in and was basically not penalized at all.
In the two examples you could argue, that still the team was penalized, as it conceded a goal while the 2 min was active. But i don't think that that is what a 2 min is existing for in the first place. A 2 min is there to penalize a player for very bad behavior, it's not there to penalize a team for anything. In my examples the player doesn't get penalized much.
When the rules get stricter on the other hand, i would see that it might have merit, as maybe even 2 or more players would get sent off and because a 2min penalty then maybe shall not be worth more than a goal, but as stated in the other discussion, i am not a fan of that.
Comment
Referees do not send people off because it is is hard to make a decision that could change the game so drastically. So play (at high levels) gets more and more dangerous, until too many things have been allowed and nothing is called.
Two minute penalties makes it easier to penalise players for fouls, as they should be, which keeps the game in check.
Being sent off and having the opposition score against your team is a large penalty in a close game, so I don't think it is an issue that players would be allowed to come back in after a goal is scored, Your team is still one goal down, which is hard to get back, and if you keep fouling the opposition it will happen again.
Currently, close to zero 2 min penalties are given. Players getting zero penalties seems worse to me than someone only getting 30/60/90 seconds. If 30/60/90 second penalties mean that penalties are actually given when deserved then I think that is a positive change.
Comment
You're talking about mismatched games. However, with the current rule, that better player would have a penalty over the full 2min and the other team could score 3-4 goals which would probably decide the goal. Would you as a referee dare to give that 2min penalty if the foul was in the grey zone of the current rules? Based on my experience in the Swiss League, only very few referees would give the 2min in such a situation (and only a few more would give the 2min even if the foul is clearly dangerous).
If you feel that a player should be penalized more, this player should be sent off for the remainder of the game (or get a 5min). In the end, the entire team is also somewhat responsible that all players behave. It's in the end a team sport.
As I wrote in the other discussion, I think both changes should be implemented and they make most sense together and I see that there may be an imbalance if we only implement one of the changes.
Comment
I agree that together the changes are most useful
Comment
I agree with you that rules should be enforced stricter which can lead to more 2min penalties.
But I oppose to an early penalty box termination when the opposing team scores a goal.
Like in the last times discussion i think a penalty time should be more valuable than just one shot goal. We often have 10 or more goals per game! Sometimes the penalises player also needs to cool down and reflect on ita behaviour (hopefully 2 mins are enough then).
Ciao Ole
Comment
I think i is a good change. But the 2min only should end if the not panalized team scores a goal and i tink it makes only sence in combination with stricter penalties.
@Ole if the cool down of the player is too short the same foul will be happen a few moments later and then its a 5min penalty and then he had enough time to coom down.
Comment
We are pretty even here with opinions. Slightly more support for not putting this to proposal if we include non voting members.
We only really have 4 voting members commenting, it would be nice to have more hockey players comment on this.
It would be good to hear from hockey playing voting members on this. We have not hear from one non voting member but the others have given useful feedback.
Benjamin Fischer, Larissa Barten, Malte Voelkel, Nicolas Cartier, Ryan Wood
Comment
I support the proposed rule change that a 2-minute penalty should end if the opposing team scores a goal.
Currently, such penalties are rarely applied in unicycle hockey because referees hesitate – 2 minutes often feel too harsh, even for clear fouls.
If the penalty can end early due to a goal, it becomes much easier to call these fouls consistently.
Overall, this would lead to a fairer game and encourage stricter rule enforcement.
Comment
I agree with Nicolai, Pascal and Steven.
Comment
I find the discussion about changing the two-minute penalty rule very interesting, but I haven’t formed a clear opinion yet. On the one hand, ending the penalty early after a goal could lower the barrier for referees to give penalties, which would be a step in the right direction. Currently, many borderline fouls go unpunished because two minutes feels too severe. This change could lead to more consistent enforcement. On the other hand, I understand the concern that this could weaken the impact of penalties, especially in cases of intentional or serious fouls. A two-minute penalty is supposed to be meaningful, both for the team and for the individual player. It also serves as a cool-down period that could be cut short too easily with this rule. I feel like a lot depends on whether this change is combined with stricter overall rule enforcement. It might only make sense as part of a broader update in how penalties are handled.
Comment
I am against a goal ending the 2min penalty. Compared to ice hockey, we score more goals in a game, so a goal can be made up more quickly. With the new rule, we would minimize the penalty to one goal, which for me is too little potential advantage for the non-penalized team.
Comment
I agree, ice hockey generally has much fewer goals so scoring a power play goal has a much larger impact on the game. Plus, ice hockey stops the clock all the time so 2 minutes lasts longer. Having the full 2 minutes to rack up some goals is more appropriate for our game for a penalty in my opinion.
Comment
I think it appears that allowing the player back on after a goal is scored is a reduction in the penalty given. But I think this is because of how infrequently we actually enforce these.
At Grenoble Unicon I was in the hall for all 130 matches of A and B comps. Out of 47 A grade matched I can remember 2 x 2 min send offs, out of 83 B grade matches I can remember 1 x 2 min send off.
That suggests that only 2.3% of matches included a dangerous foul worthy of punishment more than a free shot. I am certain that at least 25% of matches (or around 30 matches) have a dangerous foul, such as a high speed sub.
Allowing a penalised player to return after a goal might seem like a softer punishment, but in reality, most teams that suffer a dangerous foul currently get no advantage above a free shot. Referees are unwilling to give a 2-minute send-off because it feels too harsh. As a result, dangerous fouls almost never result in a send off and the fouled team is left with nothing more than a free shot, while the offending team keeps all its players on the field.
Comment
Thanks for this statistic. For UNICONs and championships there is a requerment for a pool of good referees (e.g. Rolf as hockey director did this in Montreal for B-level), but this is not a matter of ruling it is more organizing and finding volentiering refeeres. Again, there is still a need on more national training of the referees and they should more dare in using 2-minute penalties.
From my point of view the sent off for the remainder of the game should be more harder. We can do a simple word change.
old: "When a player is sent off for the remainder of the game they may not take part in the current match or their teams following match."
new: "When a player is sent off for the remainder of the game they may not take part in the current match and their teams following match."
(On UNICONs in total I have seen only onetime a sent off for the remainder of the game. On top the referee wanted that the player has to leave the gym. Then the problem with the responsibilities started [referee for the game - hockey director for the gym?]).
Comment
It seems that we do not get any further with this discussion.
When I understand everyone's opinion correctly, we currently have
- in favour: Benjamin, Nicolai, Nicolas, Steven, Pascal
- against: (Fin, Herbie), Larissa, Ole, Ryan,
- undecided: Malte
So, when put to a proposal, we would have a close decision, and I would prefer we have a larger majority when implementing changes. How can we proceed from here? There are still a few members that did not write their opinion.
To those that are against this change: Would there be an additional rule change where you feel that then this suggestion (penalty box termination) would be a good (or at least better) change?
@Herbi: In my opinion, this "or" is a "and / or" and not an "either ... or ...", so for me this wouldn't be a change. However, if you feel we still need to change this rule, I kindly ask you to open a new discussion.
Comment
#Nicolai: "Although these discussions are related, I would like to keep them apart." You opened a separate discussion about making the rules stricter.
Here under the heading "14B.9.5 Penalty box: Termination" you like to discuss softing the 2-min penalty rule. Open a 3rd discussion related on "14B.9.5 Penalty box: Termination for >sent off for the remainder of the game<" does't make sence to my, I will add this in your opend discussion about making the rules stricter.
Comment
@nicolai you can erase the parentheses around my name in your summary. (Well you can't edit the post :D ) I'm against the change. The reasons have been stated. i see more negative than positive here.
Comment
The parentheses are probably because you and Herbie are non voting members
You opened a separate discussion about making the rules stricter. Here under the heading "14B.9.5 Penalty box: Termination" you like to discuss softing the 2-min penalty rule. Open a 3rd discussion related on "14B.9.5 Penalty box: Termination for >sent off for the remainder of the game<" does't make sence to my, I will add this in your opend discussion about making the rules stricter.
I think this is the key issue here.
Many who are against allowing the player to come back after 1 goal see it as "softening" the 2 min penalty rule. Those who want it brought in, think that it will result in many more 2 minute penalties being given.
If we progress from 2 send-offs per 100 matches to something like 15-20 per 100 matches, why is it considered "softening" the rule. The numbers dont lie?
Thanks for this statistic. For UNICONs and championships there is a requerment for a pool of good referees (e.g. Rolf as hockey director did this in Montreal for B-level), but this is not a matter of ruling it is more organizing and finding volentiering refeeres. Again, there is still a need on more national training of the referees and they should more dare in using 2-minute penalties.
The lack of 2-minute penalties is not due to a lack of good referees. The A grade probably has the most experienced referees yet we still have no send-offs.
2 send offs in Grenoble A grade.
One was against the Australian team, realistically we should have had about 15 send-offs across the tournament.
The other send off, the referee gave a 2 minute penalty to a player who they normally play on the same team in club championships. I feel they felt more emboldened to make that call as they had a closer relationship with that player.
Comment
I suggest the following change of rules to implement the termination of the 2-min penalty (and only 2-min penalty, 5-min penalties should not be terminated early).
In 14B.9 Penalties we already have:
Additionally, at the referee's discretion, offending players may be sent off after advantage has been played. The referee should not enforce this penalty until the offending team gains possession of the ball and should resume the game with a face off at the point of possession change.
I'm not sure whether we also need to mention this in the 2-min penalty box section. I will for now also include it in the suggestion for addition of 2-min penalty box:
If a player from the team in possession of the ball commits an infraction that warrants a 2-min, 5-min, or match penalty, the referee shall immediately interrupt the game and penalize the offending player or team.
If a player from the team not in possession of the ball commits an infraction of the rules which would call for a 2-min, 5-min, or match penalty, advantage shall be played. Advantage shall continue until the offending team gains control of the ball at which point the referee will interrupt play and impose the penalty on the offending player or team.
If the penalty to be imposed is a 2-min penalty and a goal is scored on the play by the non-offending side, the 2-min penalty shall not be imposed but 5-min and match penalties shall be imposed in the normal manner regardless of whether or not a goal is scored.
If two or more 2-min penalties were to be imposed and a goal is scored on the play by the non-offending side, the captain of the offending team shall designate to the referee which 2-min penalty(ies) will be assessed and which 2-min penalty will be washed out as a result of the scoring of the goal.
Termination (new heading)
“Short-handed” means that the team is below the numerical strength of its opponent on the field.
If, while a team is “short-handed” by one or more 2-min penalties, the opposing team scores a goal, the first of such 2-min penalties shall automatically terminate. This rule shall also apply when a goal is awarded (14B.9.3 Penalty Goal).
When a team is “short-handed” by reason of one or more 2-min penalties, and the referee signals a further 2-min penalty or penalties against the “short-handed” team and a goal is scored by the non-offending side before play is interrupted, then the goal shall be allowed. The penalty or penalties signaled shall be assessed and the first of the 2-min penalties already being served shall automatically terminate.
Should a 2-min penalty be signaled against a team already “short-handed” by reason of a 5-min or match penalty, but before the play was interrupted to assess the 2-min penalty, and a goal is scored by the non-offending side, the signaled 2-min penalty shall not be imposed due to the scoring of the goal.
Comment
I generally agree
Comment
I am sorry Nicolai, but these seem to be much too long and too complicated rulings for such rare cases.
Maybe we should at first enforce the stricter rules and observe (over the next two years), if they lead to more 2-min-send-offs. When we have more 2-min-send-offs we can evaluate what influence they have. How many goals are scored in powerplay? Is it too much? Too less? if needed rules can be adjusted then again.
Comment
I agree with the new rule. maybe we need a shorter wording.
@ole at the moment a 2min penalty in close games decides the game. I think most of the referees wil not give more 2min because thy don't want to decide the game. In ice hockey you have a match time of 60min and the 2min ends after a goal. In unicycle Hockey the match time is normally 10-20min with the current rule the 2min dosent end if a goal was scored. So the impact of a 2min is 2-6 times higher than in ice Hockey depends on matchtime. So i think we need this rule change.
Comment
@Pascal at the moment a 2min penalty in close games decides the game. I think most of the referees wil not give more 2min because thy don't want to decide the game.
If we implement the stricter rules the referees will be required to give the 2 min penalty. So there is no danger of a referee avoiding penalties if we have stricter rules. I believe the stricter rules is the most important as it enforces safer play and does not allow the referee to avoid ruling on it.
Personally, I believe early termination would be a good in the long run. But I agree with Ole that if we enforce stricter rules now, in two years time players may see the early termination as a good addition when we revise the rulebook again.
Comment
Agree with Ole and Stevens last comment to observe the stricter 2-min change and review this discussion in 2 years
Comment
@Ole: I prefer long and clear rules over short and ambiguous rules. What is complicated in the suggested rules? Please feel free to suggest a simplification or a shorter text.
Both in ice hockey and floorball, the power play success rate is roughly 20%. I would expect it to be higher in unicycle hockey, but not above 50% in balanced games. However, this will be different in unbalanced games. We have many unbalanced matches where a single 2min received by the weaker team may lead to at least 2 goals. I think in such cases, termination would be very beneficial to not increase the score even more.
@Ole and Larissa: May I ask how much experience you have with 2min penalties as a player, referee, or spectator?
I‘m happy to wait with this vote until the one about the stricter penalties is over. However, with a quite clear effect on games, I don‘t want to wait for 2 years.
Comment
Pascal wrote:
In ice hockey you have a match time of 60min and the 2min ends after a goal. In unicycle Hockey the match time is normally 10-20min with the current rule the 2min dosent end if a goal was scored. So the impact of a 2min is 2-6 times higher than in ice Hockey depends on matchtime. So i think we need this rule change.
I am just thinking of another way. If the impact of 2min send offs is too big, we could argue to generally reduce the send off time to just 1 minute instead of 2 minutes?
Nicolai wrote:
@Ole: I prefer long and clear rules over short and ambiguous rules. What is complicated in the suggested rules? Please feel free to suggest a simplification or a shorter text.
I appreciate your enthusiasm. Sorry again, since I am not convinced we need the early termination (yet) I am not eager in writing a long or short rule for that.
@Ole and Larissa: May I ask how much experience you have with 2min penalties as a player, referee, or spectator?
In over 20 years in unicycle hockey I once got a 2min penalty myself as a player, i think Pascal was present (or even the referee?) I have seen a few 2min penalties as a spectator. My co-referee once gave a 2min penalty, i gave a 2min penalty at most. Yes, it is really really rare.
We hardly have single 2min send offs, so i think it is much too early to regulate 2 or 3 simultanious send offs. That are such rare cases (did that even happen anywhere already?)
What i think is worth regulating as a first step is:
Can there be more than 2 simultanious 2min penalties for a team? (also rare)
What happens if a player receives a second 2 min penalty, before the first one ended. (first foul, second insulting?) 2+2? 2min penalty bcomes a 5 minute penalty?
What happens if a three player team gets a 2 min penalty? (even rarer)
Comment
Would you be in favor of having only 1-minute send-offs?
I can accept that you're not (yet) convinced by the termination, but I would still like to know what is complicated about the suggested rule.
Thank you for giving some background. So we're coming from very different backgrounds. As I wrote in the other discussion about stricter penalties, 2min send-offs are much more frequent in Switzerland and happen at least a few times per tournament. I am a referee who gives quite frequently 2min penalties (compared to other referees) and last season, I gave in 6 tournaments around 7 2min penalties. 4 of these were given in the same game (but not simultaneously to the same team). In a different season, there was also once a situation, where a team received a 2min penalty while they were already short-handed. This is very rare but happened already.
I think that rules should work and regulate all potential cases, even though they may be really rare. I would appreciate if you could write your opinion about these questions in the other discussion.
Maybe I should frame differently, how I would like the new rules to look: We increase the duration of the current 2min penalty to 5min (to be give for the same / similar fouls) and introduce a new penalty that can be terminated and which will be given more often and for cases listed in the other discussion. This will be the new 2min penalty.
Comment
A 1-minute send off could make sense based on shorter match times we have. But it seems like it would be an incredibly short period of penalty and may make it very difficult to get a period of good play together with the overlap.
Comment
@ole I also thougt about a 1min sent-off time in addition to the 2 and 5min but i think it will be to complicate for all. And i also think it will be very hard to define the new rule what leads to a 1min ant what is a 2min. So i think the better way would be the early termination.
I can´t remember a 2min from you but i know 2min are really reare in Germany and international tournaments. I think with the stricter penalties the number of the 2min will increase a lot also in Germany and international tournaments like in Switzerland.
In addition to nicolais explanation of the situation in Switzerland here a little statistik with the current rule, for a better understanding why we think the termination is that important.
A league
6 tournaments
5 Teams
20 2min sent off
46 warnings
B-League
7 tournaments
9 Teams
13 2min sent of
22 warnings
C-League
6 Tournaments
7 Teams
2 2min sent off
7 warnings
I think with the stricter penalties half or 3/4 of the warnings would lead into a 2min sent-off. For this reason i think we really need this in addition to the stricter penalties.
@Steven I think there are still options not to give a 2min penalty. For example it depends on the referee what the definition of speed is ins case of a SUB or SIB or what is insulting and what is still ok. Mabye there will be more 2 min sent-off than with the current rule but i think there is more potential and the inhibition threshold to give a 2min will be lower with the termination.
Comment
In ice hockey they stop the clock for all sorts of things, so 2 minutes is relatively much longer in most cases. But I think a 2 min penalty should expire after the team with a man advantage scores, as the intent shouldn’t be a potential multi-goal swing. The intent should be to discourage subs, sibs, slashing, etc. as every player should be responsible for their sticks. Even if not deliberate or intentional, they are the result of sloppy play and under the control of most players (if you really don’t want to sub someone you won’t!). The other intent is to make it a more interesting game strategically and for spectators by bringing in the power play element, although if this part doesn’t pan out in gameplay I would be open to scrapping it in the future. Perhaps free shots are the way to go with this sport, like with soccer, and not power plays, I’m not sure but would like to see it tried.
I think 5 minute penalties shouldn’t expire, like in ice hockey, as the intent should be to severely penalize a team for egregious behavior.
Comment
@Nicolai @Pascal thanks for your insights from the swiss league! I did not know it is that bad over there! :-O
@Steven I agree with you, a 1-minute-penalty could bee to short to establish a good power play. it was just a quick idea.
@Nicolai last week I was working a lot and could only take a look here late in the evening, maybe that is why I wasn't able and couldn't take the time fully grasp everything and compare existing and new stuff....
I am now referring your change suggestion from 7 days before this post (why are there no absolute dates on the posts?)
The sentence from 14B.9 Penalties
The referee should not enforce this penalty until the offending team gains possession of the ball.
This covers most of your first two paragraph. To me everything is included in that sentence everything after that just double the information. I would continue like this:
Only if one or more 2-min-penalties shall be imposed but the non-offending team scores a goal before the offending team gains ball possession, one of the 2-min penalties designated by the offending teams' captain shall not be imposed. 5-min and match penalties shall always be imposed.
But as I am writing this, I realise i am against this. Is it okay to commit a send-off-worthy foul if the other team is still able to score a goal? I think such hard foul should be penalised anyway.
As I am not happy with the early termination of penalties i have no better wording for that part.
Comment
@ole its not that bad that it seems in switzerland only the refereeing is stricter than in germany or other international tournaments.
Would you be more happy if a sent-off worthy foul always be panalised. Also when the advantage leads to a goal?
Something like that: If the penalty to be imposed is a 2-min penalty and a goal is scored during the advantage, the 2-min penalty shall be imposed after the goal was scored.
Instead of the current wording
If the penalty to be imposed is a 2-min penalty and a goal is scored during the advantage, the 2-min penalty shall not be imposed. This does not apply to 5-minute or match penalties, which shall be imposed regardless of whether a goal is scored.
So there is on more goal needet to terminate the 2min. What do you think about that?
Comment
Yes, indeed. That is strict and consistent. Every hard foul is penalised, not only the ones which deny a direct goal.
Comment
In my opinion, this suggestion is not consistent and I don't like it. Then, the non-offending team basically gets an additional chance to score a goal when they were successful (first goal on advantage and then additional time during power play; we're not talking about 5min penalties, which are more serious). If we would not play advantage, this would be consistent. Also, these suggestions are derived from ice hockey (or also floorball) and making deviations from them makes the rules only harder to understand for those that are familiar with the other sport(s).
However, if this is what everyone prefers, we can change as I prefer to have any kind of termination than no (early) termination at all.
Comment
If people have a look at the multiple penalties proposal there is difficulties with how we should deal with a team receiving multiple penalties. This is an issue even in our current rulebook e.g. if a team now had 3 players in a punch up, all got sent off, then one more player got sent off you end up with only 1 on the field for that team.
The multiple penalties text is trying to come up with a method to deal with this situation that is entirely possible in our current rulebook.
From what I can see, the early termination provides an easier method of dealing with it than anything else we can come up with in multiple penalties. If a team is down to two players, it is likely the opposing team will score and a player will return. You are unlikely to ever reach a situation where 5 players are sent off for a single team and the game is unplayable.
It would be good if people can read that proposal also to see the issues associated with multiple penalties that could be solved with early termination
https://iuf-rulebook-2025.committees.unicycling-software.com/discussions/193