14B.9.5 Penalty box: Termination
Comments about this discussion:
Started
Currently a penalty box takes the total 2min.
I suggest to change the rules that a penalty box is terminated when the other team scores a goal. This would increase the attractiveness of the game and would allow to make the rules more strict and send more players off the field.
This rule should only apply for 2min penalties and would be the same rule as in other hockey variants.
Comment
I am happy with this.
I would like to point out that while scoring a goal in ice hockey removes the penalty against the team, fouls are also seen as a minor thing in ice hockey and the game has a huge numbers of them.
I don't believe that the players returning after a goal is scored against them is 100% the reason for the higher number of fouls, but it should be considered that reducing the severity of penalties by allowing players to come back early could be a partial reason why fouls are committed frequently in ice hockey.
Comment
We don't have a huge number of 2 minute penalties do we? I think it would make sense to keep it as is unless we wanna change so more fouls get players sent off the field instead of the game restarting with a freeshot (which I don't think will make the game better). Ice hockey also has 6 players per side so teams can probably more easily go down to playing 5 against 6 than 4 against 5.
Comment
I understand the suggested rule change - it seems logical, but i think, things are a little bit different here from other hockey variants.
A 2 Minute penalty penalises strong behaviour against the rules.
2 Minute penalties is a rare thing in unicycle hockey (unlike in ice hockey) and i hope it stays that way. A 2 minute penalty is a big burden.
Goals instead are more common in unicycle hockey (than in ice hockey). Receiving a goal is a lesser burden.
So, receiving a goal should have a lesser impact than returning from the penalty box even earlier than 2 minutes. The goal weighs less than the penalty. A penalty is not "paid" with just one goal.
Within the last three minutes of a game a time penalty at the moment also gives an additional 6.5m to the opposing team! If that 6.5m is successful, would that mean that the time penalty would be negated?
It should not be the goal of such a rule change to "send more players off the field". I rather have all players obey the rules and play on the field than sit in the penalty box. It should not become a tactic to foul the opponent (intentionally) and luckily not get a penalty.
Comment
Some good points made.
Tripping (equivalent of sub)/High Stick/Hooking are all immediate 2 min penalties in ice hockey in Unicycle hockey people rarely get sent off for these unless purposely done or repeatedly done.
In unicycle hockey, a 2 min penalty is very rare and used for repeated or extreme fouls, in ice hockey it is used for minor infringements.
Therefore aligning our rulebooks to have players return after a goal is scored suggests we should change how penalties are given also.
Comment
Thanks for the additional thoughts. I think, we should discuss this next week. Nevertheless, I want to write some additional thoughts.
I agree that a 2 min penalty is a rare thing. However, I don't think this is necessarily because no fouls occur but rather that the referees don't give the 2 min penalty even though it would be appropriate (one example being a match in the round robin at the last UNICON, where in hindsight I could or even should have been sent off for 2 min). This is at least how I experience it in Switzerland. I even would argue that because the 2min penalty is so rare, many referees hesitate and don't give it unless its very obvious.
Lowering the impact of a 2 min penalty (by potential early termination) and potentially changing the rules to give more 2 min penalties would in my opinion lead to a better distinction between different "sizes" of fouls (currently only "small" and "big" exist). In my opinion, the first step towards such a change should be to lower the impact of the 2min penalty.
In the few cases, where I experienced a 2min penalty, this did not often lead to a goal (or at least a change of the strengths of the teams as one team may have team stronger already). For example during the final of the last UNICON between Germany 1 and Switzerland 1 during the 2 min penalty, no goal was scored. So in my opinion, in reality a 2 min penalty "costs" even less than one goal.
I can't remember any case, where a 2 min penalty lead to more than 1 goal. So I think regarding this, the rule change would be minor.
What happens when a 6.5m is given (and goal is scored) and at the same time a player is sent off should be discussed. I didn't had the time yet to check how the rules are in other hockey variants.
Comment
I think there's a question of what we want to achieve here. Sending someone off the field is a bigger penalty than just doing a free shot or a 6.5 m shot, but it doesn't necessarily mean the incidence of fouls is reduced. If we want to reduce the incidence of fouls making sure all fouls are called is probably better. There's also a question if we think of each foul individually in which case we'll want to make the distinction in one way or we should reserve these kinds of penalties for players who're making a lot of fouls over a game (and then there'll be a question of how the refs keep track of which players make the fouls).
Comment
"I agree that a 2 min penalty is a rare thing. However, I don't think this is necessarily because no fouls occur but rather that the referees don't give the 2 min penalty even though it would be appropriate... I even would argue that because the 2min penalty is so rare, many referees hesitate and don't give it unless its very obvious."
I think this is accurate. The rarity of 2-minute penalties being called reinforces the hesitancy of referees to give 2 minute penalties. This cycle continues in circles and keeps them rare despite penalties being frequent (at least in Australia games 🤔)
I think the biggest discussion point is starting the change where 2 min penalties are given more frequently for fouls. This would then give the referees confidence to call them.
If a tournament has had 10 x 2 min penalties given for SUBS, a ref will feel confident calling a 2 min penalty for the 11th Sub. If a tournament has had 0 x 2 min penalties called for subs, refs are very hesitant to give a 2 min penalty as it is seen as a big deal.
In this respect having a player return after a goal is scored could improve the frequency of 2 min penalties actually being called by referees, however for the most part it is something that we need to work on with referees to start the process of giving penalties more frequently when deserved.
One thing may be the wording of what is suggested for 2 minute penalties in the rulebook. Often careless fouls are not repeated by the same player so 5 players in a team might sub someone badly without being sent off. This might be somewhere where changes might be needed to encourage referees.
2 minutes:
• Intentional delay of the game
• Repeated fouls by the same player
• Intentional foul
• Dangerous play
• Backchat to referee (Constant backtalking to the referee or questioning decisions)
• Intentional usage of incorrect equipment and clothing
• Intentionally having too many players on the eld
Comment
As I already wrote in a different discussion, our discussion about this topic here lead to the discussion about making the rules more strict. I suggest to keep these discussion apart and here concentrate on the termination.
According to my very little notes, we didn‘t come to any conclusion about the termination for the 2min penalty box during our meeting on Friday. However, we agreed that only a 2min penalty would be terminated by a goal of the non-offending team and a 5min penalty box has to be served over the entire time.
Comment
I don't think we had a consensus here. I can go either way on this. If we end up giving more 2 min penalties with the more strict ruleset then this also would probably make sense as it ensures a 2 min penalty is never worth more than a single goal. This may be one that should be looked at closely by trialing in the tournament that was discussed to trial out rule changes like corners.