14.B.5.8 Ball in spokes (Closed for comments)
Comments about this discussion:
Started
The rules read:
14B.5.8 Ball In Spokes
If the ball gets stuck between the spokes of someone’s unicycle, the opposing team gets
a free shot (not a 6.5 m penalty).
This happens most often for the goalie, which leads to a corner shot. I always found that weird. The goalkeeper did succeed in not letting the ball in, without doing an intentional foul. Why is the goalkeepers team getting "penalized" with a corner shot? For me a face-off at the corner would make much more sense, you could even argue to give a goalkeepers ball here, since the goalkeeper succeeded in fending off the ball, somewhat similar as in soccer where the goalkeepers grabs the ball with his hands.
In the middle of the pitch i would too argue, that a face-off makes sense. So i would suggest to either keep it consistent and give a face-off in every situation or to give a face-off in the middle of the pitch but a goalkeeper's ball when the ball is in the spokes of the goalkeeper. That could however lead to unclear situations in which on of the defendants gets the ball in the spokes and it might be not clear if that player is the goalkeeper or not.
A goalkeeper's ball in that case has the benefit that players that specialize at goalkeepers don't need to get special equipment like the plate thingy between their spokes, which i think is a nice side-effect :-)
Comment
Well, you could just always give a goalkeeper's ball if the ball hits any defendants spokes in their own goal zone and a face off outside of the goal zones. Question remains what happens if an attacker gets the ball in their spokes in the opposite team's goal zone. That might be the trickiest case. In the current rules the other team would get a goalkeeper's ball, in this new idea maybe the opposite, a corner shot, would make most sense as then the opposite occurence leads to the opposite ruling, if you know what i mean but maybe a face-off at the corner would be better? What do the others think?
Comment
I think it shouldn't be about intention.
In my opinion, we shouldn't change the rules. A corner short is the correct rule as the ball was blocked (we have the rule 14B.5.4 which does not allow to block the ball with the body) and the game needs to be interrupted. This should be penalized by a free shot.
Comment
I don't have any real thoughts about this. I have never had an issue with this rule. I honestly think if I was a defender I would prefer for the opposition to get a corner than to have the ball rebound off my wheel back at the players. I think a corner shot feels like a good result for the keeper not a bad one haha.
Comment
Is there a difference between the goalkeeper catching the ball with his hand and the goalkeeper "catching" the ball with the spokes of his unicycle? I would so nearly no.
Since it is still an unintentional foul, the opposing team gets a corner.
The rules are already clear and straight. I also would not change it.
Ciao Ole
Comment
In old days nearly everybody was using spoke-cover-shields to avoid as defender punished with a 6.5m. After changing the rule into a punishment with a normal free shot .Only goalies with 24" wheeles are keeping spoke-cover-shields to prefent that ball will go through the spikes. Only old riders not learning newer rules want to have a 6.5m for ball in spokes.
I suggest to keep the well appoved rule change to give only a free shot not thinking about a face-off.
Comment
In the rulrs it is not allowed to hold the ball. I think there is no difference between the player and the wheel. In my opinion both is a "normal" fouls an schould be threated equally. So i think it' not necessary to change the rules.
Comment
General consensus seems to be no change. I will close this discussion