14C.2.7 Referee Hand Signs

Comments about this discussion:

Started

Currently, the rulebook includes 13 hand signs, some of which were introduced approximately 7 years ago (https://iuf-rulebook-2016.committees.unicycling-software.com/discussions/45), while most of them have been in the rules for even longer. About 5 years ago (https://iuf-rulebook-2018.committees.unicycling-software.com/discussions/36), there was a discussion regarding the introduction of additional hand signs.

In my personal experience, I find myself using certain hand signs frequently, while others are rarely used. Furthermore, there are situations where I believe (as a referee) that having a specific hand sign would be beneficial. This also has led me to question why we have specific signs for certain rules and not alternative signs used in other sports.

Therefore, I would like to raise the following questions for discussion:

  1. Are there any unnecessary hand signs in the rulebook that could potentially be removed (and thus make the rules more concise)?
  2. Are there any situations where the inclusion of an additional hand sign could be beneficial?
  3. Should we consider aligning our hand signs with other sports, such as ice hockey or floorball, using more of their signs and possibly replacing some of our current ones?

Regarding the first two questions, I have my own opinions, but when it comes to the third question, I'm quite uncertain. I can see both advantages and disadvantages, so I would appreciate hearing your thoughts and perspectives on this matter.

Comment

I think this is a good discussion to be had. It doesn't seem like we have a clear system for which fouls have handsigns and there's a risk that with too many signs we end up with a bunch of misunderstandings as there may be people participating in the tournament who're not aware of all the signs.

It seems we have 3 categories of signs:

Signs for how the game should be continued: signs for free shot, face off, etc. We don't have a sign for "advantage" but rely on the ref shouting "advantage" and not blowing the wistle.

Signs for specific fouls: we have specific signs for high stick, SUB (rarely used) and a few other fouls but there's stlil a bunch of fouls that don't have signs

Signs for penalty box: we have a sign for 2 and 5 minute penalty box but not for sending someone off for the rest of the game. Seems like an oversight

The sign for sending someone off the field for 2 minutes is also shared with the sign for a 2-hand touch foul which is confusing, so that should probably be cleaned up.

Personally i think this will tie into a bigger discussion about the flow of the game. I think some of the handsigns for common mistakes like SUB or high stick can be valueable enough in leagues where the signs are in use, but it should be fine if the ref just makes a signal for where the free shot should be taken and tells the players which foul occurred. It also seems like the game ends up being better for everyone when more timeouts are taken so the refs can figure out what happened and discuss that with players if needed. In general people won't be sent off the field without a timeout having happened anyways so the handsigns for that don't seem to be of much use.

I think the way I would structure these would be to add a sign for advantage (for instance making an A with your arms) and treat the handsigns for specific fouls as optional. For decisions to send people off the court we could just rely on the announcer to make that announcement over the speaker system since they'll have to keep track of when people can get back in the game anyways. For games that attract a lot of specators it might be valuable to have fouls announced anyways as it might allow them to better follow the game similar to announcing the tricks make flatland and street easier to follow as a spectator.

Comment

  1. Are there any unnecessary hand signs in the rulebook that could potentially be removed (and thus make the rules more concise)?

Signs that are less useful in my mind are, 6.5m (play is always stopped when awarded so can be verbalised), No goal (not one I really have used even when calling no goal). I don't feel strongly about removing them, but these are the ones I use less.

  1. Are there any situations where the inclusion of an additional hand sign could be beneficial?

I don't have many situations where we specifically would need a hand signal but if I am thinking about things that we call.

  1. We call a foul when players touch the walls during play or use them to turn. I.e. if they are not "riding freely" and they are penalised. Same goes for holding the goals. I dont think other countries are as strict on this.

 

  1. Should we consider aligning our hand signs with other sports, such as ice hockey or floorball, using more of their signs and possibly replacing some of our current ones?

I would look to Ice hockey and floorball to see if there are any that are worthwhile. I have the rules open and will have a look soon.

I agree with Magnus that the Penalty Box and 2 touches of the hand is pretty confusing. The two touches with the hand is an extremely rare foul in my experience and potentially a hand signal is not needed.

Comment

Thanks you both for your answers and thoughts.

I agree that having too many hand signs can lead to confusion. But on the other hand having not enough hand signs can also lead to confusion (or even more so) as it might not be clear, why exactly a referee is calling a foul. This is why I think we should have a hand sign for most of the fouls. Borrowing or adapting hand signs from other hockey variants is probably the easiest as player and referees might already know them.

@Magnus: The SUB hand sign is one of the hand signs I use most often (considering hand sings for specific fouls).
And we already have a hand sign for "advantage": It's the same as free shot.

I like the idea of announcing a penalty box over the speaker system (and also taking a time out - which is currently not in the rules and should be added in my opinion; I will open a new discussion for this). However, I think it would be still good to have a (general) hand sign for "penalty box".

 

In general I think the rules should work best for leagues with experienced players and referees. They probably play most often and also "exotic" situation can occur.

Overall, it seems to me that you would support restructuring the current hand signs (removing unnecessary ones, adding a few new ones, and aligning with other hockey variants). Unless there is any objection, I will try to come up with a more specific suggestion within the next few days.

Comment

I think it would be great to split this into more specific proposals. As to the advantage rule it seems weird to if the sign for a generic free shot is used where a more specific hand sign is available (like SUB) and also sometimes it can be hard to hear that the ref shouted "advantage". I think it might make sense to consider if the advantage could be announced differently by the ref, both for the benefit of the players and the spectators.

Comment

The sign of advantage is the same sign as free shot because you play advantage when someone is fouled (bring hand up), if no advantage is played then you blow the whistle and your hand goes in the same direction as it was in. I think its acceptable, but if we find something more clear then we can discuss whether it is a better option

Comment

Thanks for creating this discussion!

to 1. are there any unnecessary hand signs in the rulebook that could potentially be removed (and thus make the rules more concise)?

At the moment we have 13 handsigns, which is not much. I use all of them and I don't think we should drop some of them. I for example often use "no goal" and "advantage". I seldom use "no foul" (rather advantage) , should do it maybe more often. 

to 2. Are there any situations where the inclusion of an additional hand sign could be beneficial?

Yes! I am missing signs for the following situations/fouls which happen from time to time. 

Some of the floorball hand signs could be useful (https://dltaw1vhj9zy5.cloudfront.net/2022/05/Rules-of-the-Game-2022-Final_updated_18.05.2022.pdf)

+ to less distance (< 2m) of a defender or defenders stick at a free shot. (floorball sign 915?)

+ false start after a goal (defender or defenders stick crosses the middle line before ball or attacker crosses middle line)

+ wrong free shot (double contact of player conducting free shot)

+ players start play (free shot, restart after goal) before the referee reopens play with a whistle blow.

+ time play / delayed play (floorball sign 924)

+ wrong substitution (wrong place, wrong number of players) (floorbal sign 920?)

+ player elimination for the rest of the game.

+ Fernschuss / Goal shot from behind the middle line

to 3. Should we consider aligning our hand signs with other sports, such as ice hockey or floorball, using more of their signs and possibly replacing some of our current ones?

Yes, i like some of the floorball handsigns as listed above. But we should not alter our existing hand sign to contradicting hand signs of other sports (e.g. floorball sign 807).

 

@Magnus

I agree with you, signs can be grouped into your three suggested groups.

When refereeing the referee should always show sereval hand signs one after the other (and additionally call it out):

  1. foul hand sign
  2. (penalty box hand sign if necessary)
  3. game continuation hand sign

Announcing fouls and referee decisions over a speaker system

This should always be optional and not mandatory. Not all venues have speaker system (or even a display). The referee has to be able to lead a game on his own without help from outside.

 

Ciao Ole

Comment

I'm not sure how useful it'll be with signs for things like double touching on free shots or false start after a goal since I imagine those fouls will mostly be done by players less familiar with the rules and they won't know the handsign anyways. I have had two situations like that at unicon (one where a player on my team played the ball on the wall to himself and another as a ref in a game where one team didn't hold the end of the stick) and in both cases the issue was the understanding of the rules and wouldn't have been helped with another handsign. I think the situation with a goal from behind the middle line would be resolved with the "no goal"-handsign without a need for a new handsign as well.

Copyright © IUF 2022