14D.3.1 Playing field dimensions
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
We have discussed a lot about distances in different situations, which shall be uniformly 2 meters everywhere. I propose this distance shall be reflected in the playing field dimensions graphic of the rulebook. The graphic in the rulebook is by the way not to scale and should be improved.
Therefore i created some examples for a minimal playing field of 20m * 35m. Each cell in the used paper represents 2mx2m. You can see the images here:
http://brettrennsportfreun.de/teilen/dateien/iuf/playing_field_dimensions_2m_circles.jpeg
2m-radius circles at the standard free shot spots: corners, 6.5, centre point
http://brettrennsportfreun.de/teilen/dateien/iuf/playing_field_dimensions_crosses.jpeg
possible markings in the gym: crosses at the standard free shot spots and relevant points 2m from the board. With the additional crosses it is easier to determine where the 2m distance to the board is reached.
http://brettrennsportfreun.de/teilen/dateien/iuf/playing_field_dimensions_crosses_and_circles.jpeg
combination of circles and crosses.
I can imagine that most organisers will not mark these extra circles but i think it is important to include these distances in the graphic to visualise them raise the awareness to these distances.
Ciao Ole
Comment
We should include the newly proposed distance between the goal and the wall too, if that gets through.
Comment
2. picture: I see a benefit for marking 6 additional "crosses" (or) on the floor will be quick and better seen the 2m distance to the boards. This will take less than 5 min for set up the playing field. This should be easy added to the grafic in the rulebook. I support this idea, needs to set in words.
The 1. and 3. picture: Yes, it gives a good imagination e.g. for "training/taktic boards" or training the referees. But I don't believe host like to do such amount of marking on the floor - perhaps host on UNICONs or other several days lasting tournamants on the same field will do this additional circle marking.
Comment
An administrative note regarding the figure: If a variant has been agreed here, please post a “final” hand drawing - I would then create a LaTex drawing from it, which could also be included in the rulebook. This graphic could also be linked in an official proposal so that the final graphic could be voted on.
Comment
I like option A, but I think the circles showing the radius should be in greyscale or dashed lines. There should also be a legend that explains these circles are only to show the required distance between players during free shots, and they do not need to be marked on the ground.
I also like the 2-meter line shown from the sidelines.
The "X" marks are good for the center mark, the 6.5-meter marks, and the corner marks. These are exact places where free shots will be taken from.
For the marks that are 2 meters in from the sideline, there is no exact spot where free shots will be taken. So, I think the "T"-shaped marks used in option B are better here.
I think we should use the "T"-shaped marks from option B for the sideline points, instead of the "X"-shaped marks used in option A.
Comment
If I would vote for graphic "B". For me it is only imported that there are markers, the shap of the markers "X", "T" or only a clear dot is for me not so relevant.
Comment
I see a benefit for marking 6 additional spots on the floor. It will be quick and better seen the 2m distance to the boards and support recognizing not marked lines on the floor like 6.5 m lines. The sketch in 14D.3.1 Dimensions and the wording in 14D.3.3 Markings need adjustments.
Comment
I said that I would be willing to create a corresponding graphic for the rulebook - attached you will find a version of what it could look like. Please let me know what needs to be adjusted in the graphic:
https://einrad-bdr.de/upload/file/IUF_Rulebook_Committee/hockey-field_NEW_V250719.pdf
Comment
I just created a proposal for that too, to have the description changed as well. I added a drawing too. The proposal has to be accepted, who does that?
Very nice Jan! Looks already very well. You thought of some elements I forgot, good! Vertically marker, perfect. Beveled corners, nice.
Please make the center line and 6.5m line solid, not dashed. I like the orange dashed lines. Please make the orange dots, which are 2m apart from the barrier, into short lines parallel to the barrier. Can you add 2m-radius circles around center mark and corner marks? Can you add 2m-radius halfcircles around the 6.5m spots towards the center spot? These could be orange too.
Comment
Orange later will not be regognized on black-white-print. Currently it is more an indicator.
In normal gyms there will be a premarked centerline for other sports but usually not wall to wall. These most shorten line we may use but we will never mark a full center line wall (sideline) to wall (sideline) for our sport. The center line is more a ca. 5 cm wide invisible line.
The 6.5m line was never marked on the floor so far, it was an invisible line "and run through the 6.5 m marks" in the sketch drawn as dashed lines.
The only lines which have to be marked on the floor now are the goal lines. A change in the new sketch from dashed lines to solid lines.
The spots in the sketch indicate where markers on the floor should be made. (Plus new where vertical markers should be made.) It doesn`t gives a guideline for the shape of these markers. (The shape of the markers on the floor was an open discussion on crosses, t-shapes or dots without an majority). Key of these proposal should be to have 6 more spots marked on the floor.
The extension of the goal lines retain as invisible lines. Invisible lines from corner mark to corner mark 2m apart from the side lides running through the new markers are added in the sketch with dashed lines. (drawing solid "short lines parallel to the barrier." would force to mark these lines on the floor.)
Ole: "I can imagine that most organisers will not mark these extra circles but i think it is important to include these distances in the graphic to visualise them raise the awareness to these distances." Steven: "I think the circles showing the radius should be in greyscale or dashed lines. There should also be a legend that explains these circles are only to show the required distance between players during free shots, and they do not need to be marked on the ground." Drawing small dashed lines, indicating invisible lines, for circles and halfcircles around spots into the sketch would have the equivalent purpose as invisible lines along the sidelines.
Comment
> Please make the center line and 6.5m line solid, not dashed.
As Herbie has already mentioned, I think the crucial question is whether these lines on the field are actually always physically marked, in which case they should be solid lines, or whether they are virtual lines, in which case I think they should remain dashed in the drawing.
> Can you add 2m-radius circles around center mark and corner marks? Can you add 2m-radius halfcircles around the 6.5m spots towards the center spot?
Yes, of course, I can add that. Since these (semi)circles are probably also virtual ones, I would also draw them as dashed lines!?
> The spots in the sketch indicate where markers on the floor should be made. (Plus new where vertical markers should be made.) It doesn`t gives a guideline for the shape of these markers.
I would agree with this, drawing such markers to scale would probably not really make sense anyway - so I would rather see the purpose of the plan in describing the positions. How the marker should look can either be described in the text or in a separate illustration, if this is deemed necessary. (I think the corner markers and the 6.5 marker are usually also not circles, but rather crosses on the ground?)
Comment
Here the updated figure:
https://einrad-bdr.de/upload/file/IUF_Rulebook_Committee/hockey-field_NEW_V250720.pdf
Comment
I have seen markers as printed out dots, taped crosses or the lazy version only a nearly square short tape strip. All kinds of markers did their job. So what I wouldn`t rule the host how and with which shape he has to fix the markers on the floor. I can`t identify a need for shape fixing.
I would vote for Jans last drawing.
Comment
We have to be careful this doesn't become a tail wagging with thr dog. Who defines the rules (markings, dimensions) of the game? This committee or (us lazy [yes me too]) tournament organisers not willing to put on important markings?
The center line is very important. It is the important threshold attackers and defenders have to look out for after every goal! A solid line.
The 6.5m lines are important too, they mark the beginning of the goal zone, which is important for free shot execution spots. The vertical markers are in fact already a concession to us lazy organisers not marking the 6.5m line. If it always was there, we wouldn't need vertical markers. A solid line.
We have a 2 meter distance rule when penalties, free shots and face offs are executed. We have 7 fixed spots where these happen: center, corner, 6.5m marks. Why don't we put in 2m distance circles in these spots to help players to keep their distance? To me they also belong as solid lines on the field. Such things are present in e.g. soccer, basketball, ice hockey, too. Solid circles to me.
The other markings at 2m from the borders are virtual they shall only help to find the correct distance from the border.
Comment
> We have to be careful this doesn't become a tail wagging with thr dog. Who defines the rules (markings, dimensions) of the game? This committee or (us lazy [yes me too]) tournament organisers not willing to put on important markings?
Of course, this committee makes the rules - but the feasibility of implementation should always be kept in mind. A rule that is/can't be implemented by the majority will only lead to the rules as a whole not being taken seriously and people might say “minor deviations are okay, you don't have to implement everything 1:1”. However, it should be our aim when creating the rules that they are (or can be) implemented 100% and that all competition organizers adhere to them in the end.
In many other sections of the rulebook there are therefore distinctions between rules for IUF sanctioned events (Unicons) and smaller local events, for example, which take into account that you can/must apply different requirements for a Unicon than for a very small event. Yes, this often makes rules a bit longer, but it allows for a differentiation of levels of competition.
But in the end, of course, it is up to the committee to decide whether the relevant lines must always be marked or whether the orientation markers at certain points on the playing field are considered sufficient.
> Such things are present in e.g. soccer, basketball, ice hockey, too.
Soccer and basketball are incredibly popular sports that have fixed and permanent floor markings in almost every gym. Ice hockey logically uses special halls that are explicitly built for it - unfortunately none of this applies to unicycle hockey, so I think the question is justified as to whether the same standards can/should be applied here.
But as I said, in the end it's up to the committee to decide.
Comment
I don't like if we would require all these new markings. This makes organizing and carrying out a tournament only more complicated and requires additional material (tape) for only very little benefit.
If free shots were only to be executed at these 7 points, drawing the circles could make sense. However, there will be many other free shots, where the distance has to be estimated.
In the current form, I can't support this proposal.
Comment
I dont see it necessary to put in 2m circles. The benefit of it would not be great enough to warrant the time.
Mostly I think the fact that players cant be within 2m of the player executing the free shot means that they are usually situated elsewhere. I haven't noticed instances where I felt the defending player was so close to the person taking the free shot that I needed specific measure of the 2m
Comment
The centre line needs to be solid as that is minimum for people crossing after a goal and shooting. The other dotted lines can remain dotted (meaning not required to mark?)
Comment
> The other dotted lines can remain dotted (meaning not required to mark?)
That would have been my understanding of dashed lines in the drawing - no complete marking on the field necessary, but e.g. markers on the side and some points of the line are sufficient.
Of course, every organizer is free to mark these lines completely, although I don't think this will happen very often.
Comment
Okay, so we stay with center line as only solid line (besides the goal line now). So what do you say to the distance circles as dashed optional lines? That would be nice!
Comment
I have no issue with the dashed 2m circles as they are not required. I think it is fine.
What are the lines in the corners representing. If they are sold they seem to indicate that they must be marked?
Comment
In gym if there is no premarked center line or an only premarked center line from other sports (unsually not wall to wall due to the playing fields from tennis, basketball, handball and/or etc.) you like to tape a full center line or the missing parts of a premarked from the side lines?
Comment
@Steven i think Jan wanted to express with the lines in the corners, that the borders can be beveled.
@Herbie mostly there are premarked center lines from other sports like Handball. yes, we need to mark the center line. Making the centrr line optional is a step in thr wrong direction, the center line was already mandatory before.
Comment
@In gym if there is no premarked center line or an only premarked center line from other sports (unsually not wall to wall due to the playing fields from tennis, basketball, handball and/or etc.) you like to tape a full center line or the missing parts of a premarked from the side lines?
In a serious competition, yes. We would always do it at unicon if there was not an appropriate line.
I wouldn't complain to organisers if the line did not go all the way to the edges of the field, but I do believe at least 85% of the line should be there. Even as an organiser, marking 50cm every 2m is easy enough and probably adequate.
Otherwise why are we bothering with the long shot proposal to add in the ENTIRE BALL crossing the centre line.
For a goal to be valid, the last contact with the ball must occur in the opponent’s half, meaning the entire ball has crossed the center line into the opponent’s half.
If marking the centre line isn't important, why did we vote to put vertical markings for the 6.5m line? The 6.5m line is marked by a dot currently the same as the centre mark. Why require more lines for the 6.5m if a dot is enough?
Comment
@Steven i think Jan wanted to express with the lines in the corners, that the borders can be beveled.
I imagine we would need to change that from a solid line?
Comment
> @Steven i think Jan wanted to express with the lines in the corners, that the borders can be beveled.
Yes exactly, the idea behind it was that (in my estimation) beveled corners are much more common in reality than rounded ones, right?
The question would therefore be whether we should not make the beveled corners the standard in the drawing and show the rounded ones as dashed or dotted?
> If marking the centre line isn't important, why did we vote to put vertical markings for the 6.5m line? The 6.5m line is marked by a dot currently the same as the centre mark. Why require more lines for the 6.5m if a dot is enough?
I think there is a big difference between just a point in the middle of the field and a point and a vertical marker at the side of the field. In the second case, you have two optical markings through which you (as a referee) can lay a virtual line relatively easily. This is not possible with just one mark in the middle of the pitch (6.5m mark / center mark). Therefore, I see the necessity of the vertical mark at the side in any case, if there is no continuous line - but I do not see the continuous line itself as necessary in every case. Even though I would completely agree that there should be a full center line and probably also a 6.5m line at Unicons or other big competitions.
Comment
I would like to keep the rounded corners as the default. Beveled corners should be optional.
Same with me: full center line mandatory, full 6.5m line also mandatory but maybe really not as important as the center line.
Comment
> I would like to keep the rounded corners as the default. Beveled corners should be optional.
But does that really correspond to reality? I think I've played almost exclusively on fields with beveled corners so far.
> full 6.5m line also mandatory but maybe really not as important as the center line
Mandatory is mandatory... there is no more or less important. If the 6.5 m line is mandatory in the rules, then it must always be marked. But then, in my opinion, we can dispense the vertical markings on the side if the line always has to be completely marked anyway. As I said, I think the advantage of vertical markings is that they allow the referee to draw a virtual line between the two points (6.5 m mark / enter mark) that are given in this way.
Comment
I agree with Ole that rounded corners should be default and bevelled should be option. I agree that bevelled is more commonly used, but would prefer people to TRY and used rounded where we have capacity.
Also when the corners are made from multiple pieces, you can use 2+ straight bits to make a more curved corner from multiple straight piecies. In my mind this iss till better than a completely straight 5m long corner.
The centre line is pivotal as it decides whether a goal is awarded or play has started.
the 6.5m line is important because it decided between corner/goalie ball or a free shot from that location but it does not change the ruling on a goal which I think is a bigger thing.
That being said I don't care if the 6.5m is mandatory or not. I believe most lower level comps are still not going to tape it down, only unicon and the swiss might tape it down if it enters the rulebook.
Comment
> I agree that bevelled is more commonly used, but would prefer people to TRY and used rounded where we have capacity.
But where do you actually have the capacity to create rounded corners?
> Also when the corners are made from multiple pieces, you can use 2+ straight bits to make a more curved corner from multiple straight piecies. In my mind this iss till better than a completely straight 5m long corner.
I would immediately agree with that - but I would still call it a beveled corner and not a rounded one - as long as the individual sections are not small compared to the radius I think it is beveled.
But in the end I don't really care, because I think it's the least important of all the decisions we make here with regard to the drawing, whether the rounding or the bevel is shown as a dashed line in the plan. So I would make the bevel dashed.
What does the rest of the committee say about marking the center line and the 6.5 line? I think what is mandatory and what is optional is much more important here.
Comment
> I agree that bevelled is more commonly used, but would prefer people to TRY and used rounded where we have capacity.
But where do you actually have the capacity to create rounded corners?
Both unicon in 2016 and unicon in 2022 had rounded corners as they were played with dasherboards.
Any inline rink with dasherboards has rounded corners and sportstiles which work well on wheels. We have an inline rink in Sydney that is perfect for hockey 53 m x 25m, sports tiles and dasherboards.
Grenoble's rink was similar to that and the general feedback I received was that though there were initial concerns, the players enjoyed the court using dasherboards as the walls were perfect and had rounded corners.
Comment
> Both unicon in 2016 and unicon in 2022 had rounded corners as they were played with dasherboards.
But wasn't it the case at the Unicon in Spain in 2016 that many of the hockey games weren't played in a proper gym at all, but on a concrete floor? If I remember correctly, a lot of teams there were extremely unhappy with the conditions...
I'm not saying that rounded corners aren't better than beveled corners, I would also prefer to play with rounded corners, I just have the feeling that in reality beveled corners are used almost exclusively because nothing else is usually feasible in gyms.
Comment
Yes the 2016 court was not good, despite the rounded corners. But 2022 was fine. Rounded corners are possible similar to 2022. Inline rinks do exist and can work really well for univycle hockey
Comment
Old: "It is surrounded by barriers. The corners are rounded or beveled." plus text in sketch: "corners beveled or rounded", but drawing shows only beveled.
Proposal: Text and text in sketch: "corners beveled or rounded" (no rule change!) but now drawing shows both in solid beveled and rounded. This new sketch is improved and now in accordance with the text.
"corners beveled or rounded" is optional for the host and the hockey direktor (Hockey direktor may prefer rounded and the host may follow.). What is your problem with? (In 2016 all started playing in an icering with concrete floor. Due to heavy injuries A-level was going on strike and force host to finish A-level-games in a gym. For our reaction in rulebook committee, see: "https://iuf-rulebook-2016.committees.unicycling-software.com/proposals/80"
Comment
With the rule we voted on in 2016 we won't have an ice rink provided in future, so we can keep rounded corners in the rule book as an option
Comment
Solid middle line makes sense, however, I don‘t see the need for a solid 6.5m line. So only 6.5m point and markers at walls required.
I don‘t mind about whether rounded or beveled corners are default.
Comment
I updated the figure and made the center line solid.
For the corners I used a different style for rounded and beveled, to make clear that this are two different options, I think if both variants are the same style it could confuse - but I can also change that back, if you think it would be better to keep both variants the same style.
https://einrad-bdr.de/upload/file/IUF_Rulebook_Committee/hockey-field_NEW_V250727.pdf
Comment
Thanks for the updated figure!
The (updated) rules say: The corner marks are on the extension of the goal lines, 2 m in from the boundaries.
These boundaries may be - in my understanding - the beveled edges, so the corner points may be more than 2m in from the side lines. This is one of the reasons, I don‘t like the additional markers on the 6.5m line and middle line. For me, one reason to increase the distance from 1 to 2m was that players also have enough space if the referee placed the ball slightly closer to the walls than 2m. As there will (almost) never be a free shot played on these additional points, I don‘t see their need.
Comment
Hi Jan, I like the new figure, thanks for updating it.
I think the new style for the corners is a good solution, i would rather have the rounded corners solid and the beveled corners dotted. We recently played a tournament in a gym with a double set of floorball borders, so we could build a complete playing field with rounded corners.
The orange markers 2m from the sidelines are not free shot execution spots but just mark the 2m distance to find a arbitrary free shot spot between them. I think their style should differ from the style of center, 6.5m and corner spots, for example as short lines parallel to the sidelines.
Comment
Let me wait and see what the others say and then I'll adjust the drawing accordingly.
Comment
Late – perhaps not to late. Let me tell you a story from last night. My wife (no idea about unicycle hockey!) liked to know why I spent so much time on this rulebook. For example, I showed her this and the stick attack discussion. Seeing the last sketch in draft, she wants to know wherefore the circles and half circles are. I explained to her these are showing a 2 m distance by execution a free shot. She mentioned that the most free shots will happen somewhere on the playing field without having 2m distances marked, why are there marker lines only around fixed spots? My answer was that some voters like to see these, I would vote against. Now there followed good questions. OK, there is a rule to keep 2m distance from the ball during a free shot; there you have a rule players must be within a distance to the ball (vicinity) for action. Why not use the same ruler for within or without the nearly same distance, is there a need to know exactly where 2m are? My answer was “For the 2. question not in my point of few, if 1.8m or 2.2m it will be approximately 2m and would be good enough to carry on with playing as quick as possible, for the 2. a really good question.”
We have a distance which works perfect in motion and on speed. “in the vicinity of the ball (defined as the ball within the radius of the outstretched arm length plus stick)” depending on the individual player this distance is approximately 2m. Not in motion do we like to use exactly 2.00m for a distance to be outside the vicinity of the ball. (Some voters like to mark on the floor.)
Why not use the same "ruler" in Stick Attack/Contact “in the vicinity of the ball (ca. 2m)” and in Free Shot “Opposing players must keep a distance with their unicycles and their sticks of at least 2.0 m from the ball outside the vicinity of the ball (ca. 2m.)”?
Comment
I think the new style for the corners is a good solution, i would rather have the rounded corners solid and the beveled corners dotted. We recently played a tournament in a gym with a double set of floorball borders, so we could build a complete playing field with rounded corners.
I would also prefer this
Comment
We have a distance which works perfect in motion and on speed. “in the vicinity of the ball (defined as the ball within the radius of the outstretched arm length plus stick)” depending on the individual player this distance is approximately 2m. Not in motion do we like to use exactly 2.00m for a distance to be outside the vicinity of the ball. (Some voters like to mark on the floor.)
I think that wording originally addressed a different issue. I had asked what distance makes it acceptable to hit another player’s stick with your own. My reasoning was that if a player cannot physically reach the ball, meaning it’s beyond the combined length of their stick and outstretched arm, then striking their stick serves no purpose other than to destabilize them or make them fall. It was therefore voted that stick contact is only allowed once a player is within reach and has a realistic chance to control the ball.
Why not use the same "ruler" in Stick Attack/Contact “in the vicinity of the ball (ca. 2m)” and in Free Shot “Opposing players must keep a distance with their unicycles and their sticks of at least 2.0 m from the ball outside the vicinity of the ball (ca. 2m.)”?
This scenario differs in intent. During a free shot, defenders may attempt to disrupt passing lanes but are not permitted to deliberately target or strike the attacker’s stick.
Basing the minimum distance on individual reach would introduce inconsistency and potential imbalance—taller players would benefit from greater defensive clearance, while shorter players would be unfairly exposed to closer defensive pressure. A fixed distance of 2.0 m provides a uniform and equitable standard for all players.
Comment
I agree to everything Steven said above. 👍
Comment
OK, referrees don`t forget to take your 2.00m ruler with you because you are not to messure exact 2.00m. Last question, should exact 2.00m be just inside or just outside?
Comment
OK, referrees don`t forget to take your 2.00m ruler with you because you are not to messure exact 2.00m. Last question, should exact 2.00m be just inside or just outside?
Unless you ask a player to turn 360 degrees with their arm straight out holding their stick you also are estimating the distance 🙄
Sport frequently involves estimated distances
Football has a referee estimated 10-yard wall for free kicks
Rugby League has an estimated 10m retreat for the defending team. This is key to the entire game, after every tackle the defending team retreats 10m as guided by the referee
Field Hockey has estimated 5-metre rule for free hits and restarts
Basketball has a Five-Second Closely Guarded Rule with an estimated distance for what counts as closely guarded
Non drafting triathlon races use a zone of 10-20m depending on event. There is no measurement of bike distances
Lacrosse penalties require a referee estimated 4m distance
Ultimate frisbee official rules use 10 feet for most required distances
Comment
I have updated the figure and changed the style of the rounded and beveled corners.
https://einrad-bdr.de/upload/file/IUF_Rulebook_Committee/hockey-field_NEW_V250729.pdf
Comment
Perfect, thanks Jan, I would say this is ready for voting.
Comment
I agree. The pre voting period will end August 1
Comment
I reworded the new paragraph slightly
Comment
Old
2 m from the boards are T-markings on the center line and the 6.5m lines to help to identify free shot spots 2m from the barriers. These T-markings can be connected by dashed lines. Around the center mark, corner marks and 6.5m mark circles of 2 m radius can be marked to represent the distance players have to keep, when there are face-offs, free shots or penalties are executed regardingly.
New
Two meters from each side line, T-markings shall be placed on the center line and the 6.5m lines to visually identify the 2m infield boundary for free shots. These T-markings may be connected by dashed lines. Circles of 2 m radius may be marked around the center mark, each corner mark and each 6.5 m mark to visually enforce the minimum distance players must observe during face-offs, free-shots or penalties.