Proposal 113: 14B.8.2 Right of Way [ Revision 2 ]
Committee: 14. HockeySubmitted on 2025-07-20
Status: Set-Aside (Reviewed from July 20, 2025 to July 28, 2025)
Background
Malte Voelkel:
I would like to propose that we revise 14B.8.2 Right of Way from a list into a prioritization. Additionally, I would suggest adding more information regarding idling players, as I don’t think the current interpretation is correct. My proposed revision would be as follows:
Proposal
Old:
14:B.8.2 Right Of Way
The following rules apply when riders come into contact with each other:
• No player may endanger another player by forcing them to give way (for example, to push them toward the wall).
• A player who is idling or resting on the stick must be evaded. However, the idling or resting player must ensure the stick does not SUB players as per rule 14B.8.3.
• The leading of two players riding next to each other may choose the direction of turns. If both are evenly side-by-side, the one in possession of the ball may choose the direction.
• If two players are approaching each other directly or at an obtuse angle, both must take care to avoid contact. If contact occurs, the referee will penalise the player deemed to have caused the contact.
• In all cases not mentioned above, it is up to the referee to make a decision.
New:
14:B.8.2 Right Of Way
The following rules apply in order when riders come into contact with each other:
1. No player may endanger another player by forcing them to give way.
2. A player who is idling or resting on the stick must be evaded. The idling or resting player must ensure the stick does not SUB players as per rule 14B.8.3.
3. The leading of two players riding next to each other may choose the direction of turns. If both are evenly side-by-side, the one in possession of the ball may choose the direction.
4. If two players are approaching each other directly or at an obtuse angle, both must take care to avoid contact. If contact occurs, the referee will penalise the player deemed to have caused the contact.
5. In all cases not mentioned above, it is up to the referee to make a decision.
Body
Nicolai Krieger:
So far, I always interpreted the list as a priorization with the first point being the most important and then less and less important. However, I think that this is not entirely clear from the current rules and I would be in favor of including one sentence that makes this more clear.
I would be okay with most of the suggested additions, but also think they are not really necessary and are already implicitely included in the current rules (e.g. stopping just for a short moment would then be against 1: forcing them to give way). Specifically, the last sentence added to 4) contradicts the very first sentence in the right of way rules: "The following rules apply when riders come into contact with each other" and "A foul under the right of way rules does not necessarily require a crash or fall to occur".
Herbie Herrmann:
Similar to Nicolai. the 1. point is the general rule and the 2. point is the assumption of point one and important for been a defender. The 3. and 4. point explaining different other situations may happens more often. For all other situations questioning the right of way we have the 5. point ("In all cases not mentioned above, it is up to the referee to make a decision.") I can`t recognize a real need for improment of the current rules.
References
This proposal refers to the discussion: "Right of Way – Prioritization Instead of Enumeration" https://iuf-rulebook-2025.committees.unicycling-software.com/discussions/190
Discussion
View DiscussionChange Log:
- Revision 2 changed by Ole Jaekel (23 Jul 17:42)
Reduced the proposal to the "in order" part and the numbering.
- Revision 1 changed by Ole Jaekel (20 Jul 09:16)