Stricter penalties

---

Comments about this discussion:

Started 14 Mar 19:57

During discussion at EUHC2023 about the termination of the penalty box, the below discussion was raised. Here is part of my post from the previous rulebook (https://iuf-rulebook-2022.committees.unicycling-software.com/discussions/66)

I think we agreed that generally too few 2min penalties are called by the referees and that there are more fouls that should lead to a 2min penalty. Furthermore, 2min penalties are very exciting for both the teams and spectators. And to increase the safety of the game, stricter rules are beneficial. Thus we generally agreed to make the rules more strict.

More specifically, we came up with this (incomplete) list of rules we want to make more strict:
* each SUB at high speed is a 2min
* repeated fouls by a TEAM lead to a 2min
* every SIB is a 2min penalty (doesn‘t occur often but is a quite ‚bad‘ foul)

What are your thoughts on this?

Comment 15 Mar 06:28

I think this is good. I would be keen to hear what new members of the committee think

 

Comment 19 Mar 08:40

I think, "Intentional foul",  "Dangerous play" and "Intentional dangerous foul" will cover most.

I have a problem with "repeated fouls by a TEAM lead to a 2min". By my interpretation of the prior words from the second foul one player (which one?) would be sent off after all following fouls. Teams might come quick to less than 3 players. 

"Repeated fouls by the same player" should be enough. Therefore no change of rules needed. Better refereeing!

Comment 19 Mar 15:31

We here only can change the rules and not the referees (or their refereeing).

What is considered "dangerous play" can be very different, and I think the rules could benefit from some clarification. For example is a high stick considered dangerous?

Comment 21 Mar 05:43

I am very unsure about this...

In my experience 2mins are only given very rarely, in fact i've only ever seen one in person in like roughly 100 tournaments i've been to. And that one was on the European Championship. As i play mostly in the lower brackets of the league, this just doesn't happen. And i think its mostly due to the fact, that the general feeling of why a 2min is given, is that its only given for serious injure-risking play or actually unfair behaviour on purpose so a 2min would be a very harsh thing, there is a very high "dare ceiling" to give them (and i think that that is a good thing). As a ref i sometimes give a warning if i feel a player plays too rough, but that's about it, i would have given a 2 min if after the warning things wouldn't get better, but i never needed to follow through.

I actually never saw unfair behaviour on purpose (except the one time at European championships where a on-purpose SUB was the reason for the 2 min). And thats basically where my hesitation comes from: I can imagine the need for higher level play to be more strict about 2 mins, as people tend to be more rough and as the increase in speed leads to an increase in injure-risk and also players maybe become unfair as stakes rise. For lower levels however i think that its just not necessary and we shouldn't artificially induce more 2 mins just because. Again i don't think that the spectators perspective, that its maybe more fun to watch should play a role here. In the contrary: I think we are mostly playing for fun. A 2min is not fun. Not for the penalised player of course but also not for the teams that go on playing (seen by the fact, that when a team is only able to play with 4 players because of injury or something, most of the time everyone is annoyed by that in my experience). A 2 min in my opinion is something that should be what it is now: A harsh penalty given for very bad behaviour.

You could say that there's an argument to make the 2min a more common thing and reserve the 5 min for what that what in my interpretation the 2min is right now. But i am very much against that. 2min is a very significant punishment already. When you have half-times of 9-12 mins, 2 min is already a significant portion of that. 

And for the rule proposal in detail: Im very much opposing the "repeated fouls by a TEAM lead to a 2min" idea. Specific players do fouls. So specific players should get penalised for that. If several specific players would foul in a penalise-worthy way, penalise those who do. But again: I never saw that happen. 

"each SUB at high speed is a 2min"
Thats hard to judge. But i can see some merit here. I would however say, that the current rule of "dangerous play" already covers that. 

Same for the SIB.

 

That are my more-than-2-cents :D 

 

Comment 21 Mar 08:22

I think more fouls should be called because the game becomes very dangerous at a high level. New rules are needed to stop the worst plays.

At lower levels, if the games are not as intense and there are fewer fouls, that is okay. They do not need send offs. But if dangerous fouls happen, players should learn early on not to commit them.

Often, a weaker team trying to stop a stronger team commits many careless and dangerous fouls. Our team does this a lot. The only way to stop dangerous fouls is to make the punishment more likely.

I also believe that if a team repeats dangerous fouls, sending a player off is fair. If only one player is punished for repeated fouls, then teams of eight players could each commit one dangerous foul before anyone is sent off. This would lead to too many dangerous fouls and create chaos. Two teams of 8 players could result in 16 dangerous fouls before a single send off is given.

Our team in Grenoble had a player sent off because of this rule. We were warned as a team about careless fouls, and then another player committed his first careless foul and was sent off. It was fair, and I think the two minutes we played with five players was one of the most exciting periods I have experienced playing hockey.

Comment 22 Mar 13:47

"If only one player is punished for repeated fouls, then teams of eight players could each commit one dangerous foul before anyone is sent off. Two teams of 8 players could result in 16 dangerous fouls before a single send off is given." No,No. Every dangerous foul can be punished with 2min. A repeated dangerous foul by the same player will be punished with 5min. If this happens more often in short time period this team is running out of players.

Comment 22 Mar 20:51

"Im very much opposing the "repeated fouls by a TEAM lead to a 2min" idea. Specific players do fouls. So specific players should get penalised for that. If several specific players would foul in a penalise-worthy way, penalise those who do."

But if repeated fouls by a team lead to a 2min penalty for the last player to foul then no innocent player is being sent off. If 4 people on a team each foul once and then a fifth person then commits a foul and get's sent off, the 5th player also fouled. They are not innocent.

Comment 23 Mar 01:46

In the Swiss league, 2min were given more and more over the past about 10 years, and now, they happen a few times per tournament in the highest league. I personally as a referee am one of those giving the most 2min, but there are also many referees that never give any 2min. This large variability is in my opinion not good and should be harmonized. In the end, I think this is due to the very different experience and confidence of the referees but also due to the rules being not specific enough.

So, you argue that "each SUB at high speed being a 2min" is already covered by "dangerous play". Is it, in your experience refereed, like that? In my opinion not at all. Anyway, this is in my opinion interpretation of the rules and should thus be clarified.

In my opinion playing against another team with less players makes a huge difference whether they are just not enough players (due to absence / injury, in which case in is not that much fun) or someone got a 2min. In the second case it's deserved and for just 2min. So unless you experienced it (which doesn't seem to be the case), your statement is pure speculation.

I imagine the new rules having both stricter penalties and termination of the penalty after a goal is scored (https://iuf-rulebook-2025.committees.unicycling-software.com/discussions/35). This would be a change to how the game is played currently and would need a change of perception of a 2min penalty. With such a change, we could lower the barrier and impact of a single 2min while giving more. Thus as a referee, there is less of a large difference between giving "just" a free shot and giving a 2min (which I agree currently is rather large as the latter are not given that often). If in the end, players play fairy and no 2min are called because there are no fouls that deserve a 2min, no harm is done.

Before we continue discussion about the specific rules (e.g. whether repeated fouls by a player or team), I think we need more general consensus or at least more opinions from other committee members (only 4 out of 14 members wrote something and even only 2 out of 10 voting members).  

Comment 23 Mar 06:24

" I personally as a referee am one of those giving the most 2min, but there are also many referees that never give any 2min." Every referee has his personal stile to judge. You are giving - within the current rules - quicker a 2min. "many referees that never give any 2min" > In reality you are comlaining about over referees.

"In the end, I think this is due to the very different experience and confidence of the referees" - I agree. "but also due to the rules being not specific enough." - I disagree > again: You are giving - within the current rules - quicker a 2min. Taking your words a couple of days ago: "We here only can change the rules and not the referees (or their refereeing)."

Comment 23 Mar 09:14

I get Nicolais point. Currently games because dangerous more often than they should because appropriate penalties are not called. The rules are likely not straight forward enough that referees feel comfortable making a decision. 

 

If the rule is dangerous play and someone is subbed the referees can don't that there is enough evidence that it should be a send off. If the rule in the rulebook says higher speed subs should be a send off, it makes it very easy to make the decision as you have very obvious rules that support you.

I get Herbie's point that it is a referee problem. But we can likely solve that problem  to a considerable degree with some small changes.

I think the highest level games are some of the most effected by dangerous play (often from careless fouls from my team). I think perhaps if you are playing in a lower level Herbie you don't see the need for the increased safety 

Comment 24 Mar 07:12

I support the stricter ruke suggestions. Last time we als had this one in the discussion:

 high speed (or any speed) collissions.

Even in training such situations or fouls cause a lot frustration as i realised. In the end everyone wants to go home unharmed after a fun game/training. Don't stricter rules support that?

Ciao Ole

Comment 24 Mar 10:01

I also agree that more penalties should be called, at least on the A level. In ice hockey, things like tripping and hooking get called, even if they aren’t malicious or flagrant. Perhaps any subs, high speed or not, should be called, same with slashes. I think having power plays would add to the game, but they would have to be regular enough that teams would actually practice power plays and penalty kill strategies. Which means at least one or two penalties on avg in a game. As of now I’m guessing most teams don’t really practice such things because they’re so rare?

Comment 24 Mar 16:31

I agree with Nicolai. Like him, I play in the top Swiss league, especially this season there are a lot of 2-minute penalties. I'm also one of the referees who give out more penalties than others. I think in many situations the danger of the foul is misjudged, so a definition could help here, what counts as a dangerous foul and what doesn't. A foul at high speed, has a higher risk of injury, than a foul at slow speed. I think a foul near the wall or the gang should also be punished more severely.

I like that the 2-minute penalty after the first goal should be ended, but not the 5-minute penalty after a goal because the foul was very harsh or unnecessary. The rule would be the same in Ice-hockey.

 

Comment 25 Mar 03:38

"A foul at high speed, has a higher risk of injury, than a foul at slow speed." Yes, no doubt. Of course higher speed is leading to higher risk becomming more dangerous and the risk of injuries will increase. But what should be the speed limit, define high speed from slow speed, 10 km/h or what, who will be able with what kind of instruments to mesure this for each player involved? Speed is not a level for being a A- or C-level hockeyplayer. In C-level-tournaments (as e.g. hockey beginners) you would find a lot of runners quicker than an A-level-player. Imagine a german attacker craches in a swiss goalie, who will have a higher risk to be injuried? Who is wearing the better safety clothing - the high speed attacker or the slower goalie?

"Attention must be drawn to the safety of the players." Please define "dangerous play"! A sub on high speed is more dangerous, but is this dangerous play?

Not every high stick is dangerous (e.g. try to catch a looped ball no other player around) but is a foul "The blade of the stick must always be below...".

I like to repeat Steven comment a couple of days ago "Often, a weaker team trying to stop a stronger team commits many careless and dangerous fouls. .... The only way to stop dangerous fouls is to make the punishment more likely."

It's up to the good referee to find in a situation of a game the difference or the combination of "careless play", "Dangerous play" and "Intentional foul". A lot of referees feel uncomfortable making a decision, I don't believe that more rules or a lot longer defind or specified rule will really help in such quick situation. 

Not every foul should be penalized with a 2min it has to be a quite ‚bad‘ foul. And for "bad" fouls you are wellcome if you give more 2-minute-penalties (or more) than others. Taking again Nikolais words a couple of days ago: "We here only can change the rules and not the referees (or their refereeing)." What was the name of this discussion? > "Stricter penalties". 

 

Comment 28 Mar 13:15

I agree with nicolai that we have to give stricter penalties. I combination with the other discussion about the 2min it would be the highest benefit.

If we change both rules (2min and stricter penaltys) we can bring our sport a big step forward and make it more save.

I agree with Nicolai that we only can change the rules not the referees. So we have to clarify the Rules.

Maby we have to change the current rule otherwise we have a lot of 5min. Because for the same foul a 5min will follow the 2min.

Comment 05 May 04:13

I feel that the people calling for stricter penalties are the people who feel their games are getting more dangerous but not having strict fouls.

6 people are in favour, 1 is not in favour.

It appears that there is support for this, but we have yet to hear from Benjamin Fischer, Larissa Barten, or Malte Voelkel. 

It still appears to be supporter no matter what their votes are.

Does anyone want to attempt to write some guidelines for this? If not I will have a go later after finishing commenting on other discussions.

Comment 07 May 15:48

I started to write down something more specific, but didn't manage so far to finish (as it will get a rather long list). I hope I can find time to do this this weekend. 

Comment 12 May 01:56

... please keep the list short, for every top has to find a rule(r) to make decitions easier between "Intentional foul",  "dangerous play" and "Intentional dangerous foul" or just not needed to be punish. For the moment your personal stomach ruler is more strict,  other stomach rulers may be not so strict. Misjudging cource  a bad feeling. The definitions of e.g. "bad", "high speed" will require more than one sentence.

Comment 22 Jun 21:29

I agree that we should try to make the rules as clear and robust as possible. There will always be a need for the refree to use their judgement on something like "high-speed", unlike the viscinity of the ball rule I think this would be harder to create an objective rule.

The international ice hockey rulebook is over 200 pages but the rule for slashing is subjective and requires the referee to make their own decision on what is aggressive and whether the attempt was to play at the puck.

       Slashing is the act of a Player swinging their stick at an opponent, whether contact is made or not. “Non-aggressive” stick contact
       to the pant or front of the shin pads, should not be penalized as slashing.
       Any forceful or powerful chop with the stick on an opponent’s body, the opponent’s stick, or on or near the opponent’s hands that,
       in the judgment of the Referee, is not an attempt to play the puck, shall be penalized as slashing.

 

If we wanted an objective rule we should use any sub is a 2 min send off.

I think it is better to have some subjectivity and only high speed subs result in a send off. Then leaving what is "high speed" up to the referee should be ok for 95% of calls.

I think it would end up with a better result than what we have now with no send offs and play getting rough.

Comment 28 Jun 03:18

From my point of view the rule "sent off for the remainder of the game" should be more harder. We could do by 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."

Comment 30 Jun 06:13

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."

I am fine to make this change. It makes it slightly clearer. I can make a proposal as I think there will be no objection





Suggestion for stricter rules which are largely agreed upon.

14B.9.5 Penalty Box

The referee can send a player of the field for two minutes, five minutes or for the re-
mainder of the game. 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, after a five
minute period the penalised team may bring a player on. These penalties are given in
the case of unsporting behavior and also for intentional or dangerous disregard of the
rules. While a player is in the penalty box, the team may not substitute a replacement
for that player.

The following examples are not exhaustive. Referees should consider the safety of all players and the spirit of the game when deciding on penalties. The timer should be stopped while referees discuss the appropriate punishment and explain their ruling to players.

The following situations should result in a 2-minute penalty:

• Stick Under Bike (SUB) at speed. Any instance where a SUB is performed on an opposition player who is travelling at speed in a manner that creates a risk of loss of control or injury.

• Stick In Bike (SIB) at speed. Any instance where a SIB is performed on an opposition player who is travelling at speed in a manner that creates a risk of loss of control or injury.

• High-speed or reckless collisions, even if unintentional.

• Repeated fouls by a player

• Intentional fouls

• Repeated dangerous or careless fouls by a team: If multiple players on a team commit dangerous fouls, a 2-minute penalty should be assessed to the next player committing any penalizable foul, even if that foul is not individually dangerous.

The following may justify a send-off, depending on severity:
Referees should apply these penalties with discretion and consider the intent, risk, and context of each situation.

2-minute penalties may be given for:

• Intentional delay of the game

• Insults to referees, players, or spectators

• Repeated fouls by a player
• Intentional fouls
• Dangerous play

• Persistent dissent or backchat toward the referee

• Intentional use of incorrect equipment or clothing

• Knowingly fielding too many players

 

5-minute penalties may be given for:

• Repeated fouls by a player who has already received a 2-minute penalty

• Intentional dangerous fouls

• Violent conduct toward other players, team officials, or spectators

 

Match ejection (remainder of game) may be given for:

• Repeated fouls by a player who has previously received a 5 minute penalty

• Continued violent conduct after already receiving a 5-minute penalty

• Violence against referees
  
  
  
  To get the ball rolling?
  
  

Comment 30 Jun 06:15

Not sure if the intent was to take out the original foul suggestions. Feel free to reword as you see fit

 

Comment 30 Jun 14:16

"Persistent dissent" I had to look it up for translation and find advices to Plato and lyric. I know what you like to say. Please keep english for non-native-speakers more simple. Probably "Constant conflict" or "Never-ending quarrel" or ??? would be easier to understand. In rule allready in "(Constant backtalking to the referee or questioning decisions)", do you see a need for more clarification?

A rule should work in forward and backward reading:

"Stick Under Bike (SUB) at speed. Any instance where a SUB is performed on an opposition player who is travelling at speed in a manner that creates a risk of loss of control or injury".  I think all kinds of speed as well normal and lower level of speed may create a risk of loss of control or injuries. But only "at speed" should result in a 2-minute penalty. And what if the SUB doesn't involve the travelling (what happens as well) the advandtage has to play ("To keep the game going, rule violations that do not influence the course of the game should not be penalized. or see at proposal 60")"Stick In Bike (SIB) at speed. Any instance where a SIB is performed on an opposition player who is travelling at speed in a manner that creates a risk of loss of control or injury."  I think all kinds of speed as well normal and lower level of speed may create a risk of loss of control or injuries. But only "at speed" should result in a 2-minute penalty. And what if the SUB doesn't involve the travelling (what happens as well) the advandtage has to play ("To keep the game going, rule violations that do not influence the course of the game should not be penalized. or see at proposal 60")

"High-speed or reckless collisions, even if unintentional." Lets start with "unintentional collision" even on high-speed is not a "Intentional foul",  and not an "Intentional dangerous foul" but plausible "Dangerous play". If the collition was unintentional who has to be punished - both players involved should penalties with a 2-min - or?

"reckless" would be a new word used in this rulebook.  "A foul is an illegal action involving a contact..."allready in the rulebook used. "A collision forced by illegal action involving this contact should result in a 2-minute penalty." or in better wording.

I am unhappy with "speed" or "high speed", currently I have no better wording.

 

"Repeated dangerous or careless fouls by a team: If multiple players on a team commit dangerous fouls (only dangerous fouls?), a 2-minute penalty should be assessed to the next player committing any penalizable foul, even if that foul is not individually dangerous."

For every single dangerous foul (= dangerous play?) 2-minute penalty may be given (not waiting for a repetition)

careless fouls (close to unintentional) usually penalized by a free shot if not individually dangerous. 

"any penalizable foul, even if that foul is not individually dangerous." Should this even for all violations of the rules normally the free shot is the standard penalty? Would this be fair?

"The following situations should result in a 2-minute penalty:" Followed by a completed list of situations not a list of examples. Even better and stronger than saying: "2-minute penalties may be given for:"

"Knowingly fielding too many players" should be better wording for "Intentionally having too many players on the field."?