14B.9.5 Penalty box: Termination

Comments about this discussion:

Started 14 Mar 19:54

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 15 Mar 06:27

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 21 Mar 04:34

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 21 Mar 06:25

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 21 Mar 08:11

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 23 Mar 01:53

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 23 Mar 09:32

I agree that together the changes are most useful

Comment 24 Mar 06:26

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 28 Mar 12:55

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 05 May 04:07

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 05 May 06:19

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 12 May 15:31

I agree with Nicolai, Pascal and Steven.

Comment 21 May 00:41

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 22 May 10:49

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 22 May 18:11

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 22 Jun 23:26

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 23 Jun 08:45

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 27 Jun 12:59

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 28 Jun 03:18

#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 30 Jun 06:09

@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 30 Jun 08:30

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?

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.