14B.9.1 Free Shot
Comments about this discussion:
Started
Currently, the free shot is indirect.
I suggest changing this that a goal can be scored with a direct shot.
This would increase the chance of scoring for free shots from a close distance to the goal and could also make the play more interesting. I personally don't see any reason why the free shot shouldn't be direct.
I would leave the rule of "long shot".
What are your thoughts on this matter?
Comment
I agree with this. If a foul occurs close to the goal line the free shot is taken from a corner anyways. The language around the shot being "indirect" is also not super clear in the rules as it seems it mostly relates to shooting the ball back to oneself (like bouncing it off the wall).
Comment
I am quite open to changing this rule, but in my opinion this would be one of the largest changes that we have ever made to our rulebook.
With that in mind I think this needs surveying of players in our leagues to see whether others agree with us, or if we can convince them of the benefits of it. Nicolai would need to get the general consensus of players in Switzerland, myself in Australia, and Ansgar in Germany.
Pros
I think this could be a quite exciting change. It may very much change how the game is played and open up new strategies.
Teams may be more careful when defending. Often lower skilled teams create careless fouls when playing much better teams. A shot on goal being allowed would make it more dangerous if they did this.
Cons
For games where teams are outmatched. It will probably change how the game is played. E.g. The better team taking a free shot in Australia vs Danish, or Swiss vs Australia would usually involve using teamplay, but with this rule change I imagine the better team will just try to smash it into goal as hard as possible. Based on the different skill levels it would probably be a high reward play to just get one of your best shooters to shoot as hard as they can at goals.
Secondary this may result in more injuries, (or unnecessary pain). A shot from a top player hit a keeper in the eye in 2022 during warmup and he had to see a medic, a player in Germany was blinded in one eye from a tennis ball to the eye. With normal gameplay, players are pressured by the opposition, limiting their time to shoot.
A free shot that can score a goal, and a required 2 m distance of defenders gives the shooting team the ability to hit the ball as hard as they possibly can with no pressure placed on them by rushing opposition while requiring the defending team to put their body in front of the ball if they want to reduce the chances of scoring. Not every shot would necessarily go like this, but a large portion of them might likely.
Ice hockey doesn't have a free shot like we have in our game but they have protective equipment that can protect from serious injury, soccer has a free shot like we do but the ball is large and the force would be dissipated over a larger area. Field hockey makes the defenders put on face maks for their equivalent goal shots but their ball is much harder.
Some thoughts to discuss
Comment
I think the safety concerns are quite valid but I don't think those are necessarily introduced with this change. As far as I can see the issues also exist with the 6.5 meter shot and I would imagine most of these high shots occur during play where people have a split second to shoot before an opposing player intercepts the ball or blocks the shot. Rules could also be made to discourage lifting the ball for free shots to manage hazards.
That said tennis balls can hit people quite hard and there's no reason people should risk their sight going on the field or watching a game. This could also be achieved with a lighter or softer ball which would also change the game somewhat but would more directly address safety concerns.
Comment
You are right that the 6.5 can also be an issue. The free shot would have many people in front of the ball from the defending team, at a distance likely to be 2m, the closest distance possible, to reduce the angle of the person shooting. A 6.5 is at least 5.5-6 meters away depending on how far out from the goal line the keeper is, and it is only one person who is trained in those situations. In respects to a very trained team like the Swiss. Their first team keeper wears a helmet that would protect from injury to the face but it's unlikely any field player will ever be wearing a helmet to only protect against free shots so non Keepers will more frequently be in danger than keepers during 6.5s.
6.5s are also quite rare in hockey while free shots are given more often. Whenever a team has a free shot that isn't from a corner, and is over halfway, the defending team will be forced to place a player in front of that person 2m away to potentially take a shot to the body.
Comment
I think some of these things solve themselves. The closer someone is to where the shot is taken the lower on their body the ball would presumably hit them. Also, if the direct shot is blocked an indirect shot might be attempted instead which would make the point moot, especially if hitting the defending player straight on was penalised. As far as I can see the big thing that'll change here is the strategy for the defending team since there's now a bigger surface of things to defend against.
Comment
I agree that we should get the opinion of more players regarding this change.
Before starting this discussion here, I already tried to gauge the opinion of more players from Switzerland. So far, only one person was against this while more than 10 players would be in favour of this change.
I totally agree with your pros @Steven, which is also the reason I raised this discussion.
I also agree that we have to consider safety (which is the main con as far as I summarise what you wrote).
I don't know about the incident where the player was blinded but I think the warming up time is more dangerous than the actual play as sometimes several balls are shot at the goal at once and the goal keeper cannot watch all the balls at the same time. As far as my experience goes, we had also some minor incidents during warm up but much rarer during actual play (where the goal keeper can watch the ball and dodge if necessary). Especially for a free shot, the goal keeper would be ready and could react to a ball flying directly towards him.
I agree with Magnus that as the defenders have only a distance of 2-3m, they would be hit mostly at their legs (or unicycle). This could hurt but doesn't lead to any injuries.
I also see your point that with a free shot, a player could hit harder (which doesn't lead to a higher chance of scoring) . But at the same time, the player has more time to prepare the shot and thus the shot is probably more controlled (going where intended and thus not endangering any other players).
Also with the current rules teams could make a very short pass (much less than a meter) and then another player shoots. This wouldn't be much different from allowing a direct free shot.
Overall, I think this rule change wouldn't introduce additional safety concern that are not already part of our game (6.5m, indirect free shot, warming up, ...).
Comment
The 1m pass and shoot is still different in my mind as the defender can move his stick towards the attacker the moment the 1 m pass starts. This means that there will always be more pressure and less time for a player to do the biggest shot they can.
But overall these are fair responses and what I was looking for in this discussion. I only have 10ish athletes from Australia to ask so I will start to do that but we need Ansgar to talk to the Germans.
Comment
One additional thing to consider here might be what's more "obvious" or known from other sports. I don't know the rules in ice hockey or floorball but we're quite used to seeing direct shots in soccer so a lot of people might expect this to also be the case here. Having a lot of rules that are not super obvious or well reasoned might end up confusing new and old players alike. There can also be a lot of unclear situations where a ball bounces off a wheel or where it's otherwise not clear if it was a direct shot that should be ignored which could be frustrating for players.
Comment
Yes, this is one reason, why I suggested this change.
In ice hockey, there are no free shots at all (always face off) and in floor ball, direct free shots are allowed. So changing this rule would make unicycle hockey a bit more similar to floor ball (and probably many other sports).
Comment
I think this change makes sense and can go for a vote
Comment
We still need a consensus from Germany. I am discussing with Australians now but I estimate Germany makes up more than half of the worldwide unicycle hockey players and they need to be heard on a very big rule change. I have messaged Ansgar personally so he is aware of this proposal.
Comment
It's nice that you are having a lively discussion here. I will also try to find time to contribute more.
On the subject:
++ It would strengthen the free shot, which would be beneficial from a top-down perspective.
-- The corner has a disadvantage compared to the free shot from beyond the 6.50 line - although fouls in the "goal zone" have a higher criticality, risking a sub here might become less dangerous, than beyond the 6.50 line. There might be other valid options to strengthen the free shot AND the corner, like increasing the mandatory distance to 3m or changing the nature of the corner. But these should be discussed in their own thread.
o There are no major safety concerns in my opinion.
- But it will increase the bruising potential - since the shots on the goal will become more common, as you do not need a second player and arrangement - which can lead to displeasure from a bottom-up perspective.
Comment
Has anyone had practical experience with direct free shots? We should try it out before voting on it – even if it means postponing it to the next rulebook discussion round.
So far, most players I spoke to have been against taking the free shots directly (in a first impulse). I'm going to try it out in training, but even here I'm not sure our players want it.
This season in the german league we had 9396 goals in 21072 game minutes - I think this is very (too?) high and that this rule would increase the ratio further. Just a thought trigger for a wider perspective.
Comment
Ansgar makes a good point, I would rather a free shot from 7m out than a corner. Should this be the case? Did it matter?
Comment
A direct free shot from behind the 6.50m-line would definitely be more promising than a (indirect) corner, which it should not be in my point of view. The corner should be the most promising free shot as being the closest free shot to the opposing goal. A corner is not at all a guarantee for hitting the goal, so should not be a free shot from further away.
A "short pass and goal shot" free shot requires two offensive players, weakening the offense/the free shot.
A defending wall of players between a direct free shot and the goal requires at least one defending player, strengthening the offense.
I will also be questioning German players on this issue.
Comment
As an alternative to the (weak) corner i think about a rule in field hockey, where there exists the rule of a "short corner" or "penalty corner".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9poBRuhsX8
All defenders have to start behind the goal line, all offensive players start behind the 6.5m line. Then one offensive player shoots the ball from the corner to the 6.5m-line (or further away?) and play continues.
Comment
A player from my city brought up an interesting question. If direct free shots would be allowed, should all free shots be direct? For example after a ball out of bounds there should be an indirect free shot. But after a foul to a person like a sub or sib there could be a direct free shot.
Comment
I was looking up rules in other sports and some have different rules allowing direct and indirect shots depending on the foul. I think that will complicate things too much for us so it would be better to keep one set of rules for all free shots.
The corner issue could be solved by moving it to the 6.5 meter line but 1 or 2 meters (depending on that discussion) from the wall instead of the middle. Then you would have a great direct shot at goal even if it doesn't look much like a traditional corner shot. We could even keep both kinds of corner shots in the rules depending if it's because the ball went outside or because of a foul but I think we would then run into the same issue as above.
Personally I'm not too concerned about corner shots having somewhat less of a goal chance but I can see the argument about it the further free shot being a better chance to score. Another option is to use the 6.5 meter shot instead of the corner for fouls comitted in the goal area on the premise that any time you hold the ball in the goal area you have a good chance to make a play to get a shot at goal.
Comment
A player from my city brought up an interesting question. If direct free shots would be allowed, should all free shots be direct? For example after a ball out of bounds there should be an indirect free shot. But after a foul to a person like a sub or sib there could be a direct free shot.
My initial thoughts are that a free shot from a penalty deserved a direct shot more than a free shot after a ball goes out.
Comment
Our discussion on Friday didn‘t lead to a conclusion about the (in)direct free shot.
@Ansgar: You said that you did test this during training and it affected the game only in small fraction of the instances where a free short occurred, right? This is the case as in many instances, the free short is in the teams own half or a corner.
A concern about the direct free shot is that a corner would be worse than a free shot from immediately outside the goal zone. In this context, we came up with another idea (free shots within 6.5m zone), for which I will open a new discussion.
What we said was that such changes of the rules should be tested (optimally during a tournament and not ‚just‘ during training). This is valid for all changes we‘re discussion here.