Comments about this discussion:
The rule says, that "Protests must be filed on an official form within two hours of the posting of event results.“ Further restrictions on what or how protests are handed in doesn’t exist.
In my opinion this can cause greater problems: It cannot be that someone can hand in a protest for everything. Hockey is a sport where the referees have to make many decisions (with discretion of the referee) which are based on how they see the game. Therefore I suggest that protest can only be handed in for things like mistakes with the score or general about decisions regarding the tournament.
If we do not restrict the possibility to hand in a protest there may be too much to discuss about.
I don't see this as an issue unless there are examples from previous years where there are a ton of protests. Anything can be protested but the likes of a bad referee call getting overturned are very unlikely so don't think many people would attempt it.
"All Chief Judge or Referee decisions are final, and cannot be protested." (1C.11)
Who will take the filed official form and who will decide?
Who has to be the first specialist contact person?
The hockey director (not on his to-do-list at 14C.1) maybe for action from referees, secretary and timer? Who will be contact person for hockey directors responsibilities?
During the reorganization of the IUF rulebook structure, the "Protests"
section was simply copied from the old section "1.11 Publishing Results"
into the hockey section. This was done by volunteers who worked on the
entire rulebook but who are non-hockey-players. The current protest rule
does not work at all for hockey. For now, I suggest to delete it
Nevertheless, if we want, we can discuss ideas how to treat protests in
the future. There are many questions to discuss...
Somehow, the players (teams) should have the possibility to protest against certain decisions. Sorry to show up with old histories, but last UNICON I had many discussions with Rolf regarding the time table, regarding the time distribution between league A and B, the organization and other issues. If there is reached a point, where a team or maybe more teams do not agree with a decision, there must be at least a possibility to protest. This is my opinion.
Following protests could be considered:
- Protest against teams which have not followed the rules (e.g. a player plays in different teams or wrong teams)
- Protest against decisions regarding the hockey tournament in general (decisions from the hockey director)
- (Protest against decisions of the timer or secretary)
At the moment I do not have a good solution how to handle it. But I would not delete the protest rule.
I agree with Christian, just in case we should have a way how and when to protest.
I think I need to clarify a few things first:
- I am not against a protest rule. I am only against the protest rule
that we currently have in the reorganized rulebook because it is not
suitable for hockey.
- I am also against a hastily written protest rule. If we want a new
rule, we have to think about it carefully.
- Also, I would like you to know that I will not be available as hockey
director at the next Unicon. Whatever I write about the hockey
director will apply to the next hockey director in Korea but not to
Now the questions which I find most important regarding the protest procedure:
1) Who makes the final decision?
I think it should be the hockey director. I don't think the Unicon
organizers or the IUF president know enough about hockey. Also, if a
quick decision is necessary, it probably takes too long to find them
during the Unicon.
2) Is it possible to make a decision that is clearly against the
This may sound like a strange question but I think the answer should
be yes! For example, the rulebook says the breadth of the field must
be 20 - 25 m. In Spain, we just took we we got. What if someone
measures the gym now and it turns out that the width was 19 m? Do we
then have to take away the world champion title from the Swiss team?
The old rulebook had a paragraph in it which I believe covers issues like this Rolf. Rules covering this situation In the new rulebook it is under Rule 14B.1 however it is not located next to the court size so may be less clear now.
The statement says that the rules cannot cover every situation and that teams need to agree on an amount of elbow room before playing. It says specifically that the "conditions of the location have to be considered" which to me means the length and breadth are a suggestion more than a rule.
If you don't have a big enough court then the rules do not cover this situation, you will be required to give a degree of elbow room based on the conditions of the location and play on a smaller court.
@Rolf, I agree with almost all statements of you. Expect that we should take away the world champion title from the Swiss team :-)
Yes, there must be a small elbow room as Steven wrote. But still, protests can be possible. And I agree that protest must be handled within the hockey organisation. Actually, there should be a small committee of around 5 people (including the hockey director) determined from the unicycle teams. For example from 4 different nations, and/or 2 A teams and 2 B teams, and the hockey director. Those people can be determined at the players meeting for example. If we do not use the committee - okay. But at least we have one for exceptional cases.
> there should be a small committee of around 5 people (including the
> hockey director) determined from the unicycle teams. For example from
> 4 different nations, and/or 2 A teams and 2 B teams, and the hockey
> director. Those people can be determined at the players meeting for
I like the idea of the "hockey committee" for all decisions where we
have enough time to decide. However, can we force the whole committee to
be present during all games of the Unicon hockey tournament? We very
often need a decision within hours or even minutes. For example, there
may be only one game between an eights-final and the quarterfinal where
the winner of the eights-final has to play again. If the loser of the
eights-final submits a protest, we need a decision before the
Yes thats true, it is difficult. I mean we could say that it needs at least three memebrs for a decision. And if you create a whatsapp group or similar you might find at least two other members. Maybe I find a precis solution over the weekend.
The passage: "These rules cannot cover every situation. Teams have to agree on a speciﬁc amount of elbowroom before playing. The different backgrounds of the players and the conditions of the location have to be considered." has to be moved from 14B.1 (Safety) to 14A.2 (Rider Summary).
"All Chief Judge or Referee decisions are final, and cannot be protested." (1C.11) Subjective decisions of a referee may be objective wrong, the >final< decision (if any after normal short immediate protest and short discussion) of a referee he does on the playing field during the game cannot be protested. > End of story!
Now take Christian´s examples:
- Protest against decisions of the timer or secretary.
- Protest against teams which have not followed the rules (e.g. a player plays in different teams or wrong teams)
>>> "Mistakes in paperwork and interference from other riders or other sources are all grounds for protests." (1C.11)
Therefore we should make the the hockey director to a chief Judge and he has the final decision.
- Protest against decisions regarding the hockey tournament in general (decisions from the hockey director,"not as chief Judge")
In this case a small committee of around 5 people (my suggestion not including the hockey director, he is in this case only witness) within 15 min selected from maximum different players [other teams, other nation, other tournament] not involved on spot available in the gym hall (no whatsapp group or others!). The decision should be made within 30 min.
Protest against from the host provided things like the locations itself, hockey sticks, goals, time frames, etc. these sort of protest have to go to the hockey director and if he is not able do decide or fix it, he (the hockey director) has to bring this protest forward within 2 hours to the Unicon organizers or the IUF president for a final decision. In this case the hockey director should decide to carry on running the tournament or not.
> The passage: "These rules cannot cover every situation. Teams have to
> agree on a speciﬁc amount of elbowroom before playing. The different
> backgrounds of the players and the conditions of the location have to
> be considered." has to be moved from 14B.1 (Safety) to 14A.2 (Rider
Herbert, I think we can solve this indirectly. Our "Proposal 4: Safety
Clarification" will move all the safety-related text away from section
14B.1. We can leave the remaining text where it is, at the beginning of
the Competitor Rules 14B. I think it is a nice preface for the rules:
"These rules cannot cover every situation. Teams have to agree on a
specific amount of elbowroom before playing. The different backgrounds
of the players and the conditions of the location have to be
considered. Fairness of everyone involved is vital."
I think bringing a protest up to the Unicon organizers or the IUF president makes no sense. These people have probably no experience in hockey and have during a Contest other work to do (so we may have no quick decision). In the hockey we have enough good and experienced people to make a good and fair decision.
I think a player playing in the wrong team or in different teams is not a "mistake in paperwork". This rather happens if no one controls the player which are on the field. For me this is no paperwork. Sorry but I have no other suggestion.
I like the idea of a committee of players. In addition this protects also the hockey director from making a difficult decision himself an then being the "bad guy". I have no better idea how to form such a committee. Is it yet necessary to define how this committee is organized?
Could the committee be made up of all captains of teams not involved + Hockey director with the hockey director having final say in the case of there being a tied vote?
Example: Stachelbären, German Mix, SKV Mörfelden Joker, Swiss Team 2, Swiss Team, Australia Green, BTC Baukau Boogaloos are at Unicon, Stacgekbaren protest a decision with German mix. The remaining 5 teams and the hockey director vote, in the case of a tied vote the hockey directors decision decides it.
There may be an issue if a country has two teams in the tournament and one is disputing a call. Because their second team would be on the committee voting on it but I see no other easy way to create a committee quickly that also understands the sport and has an idea of how they would resolve it.
The second issue I see with this is in the case of a huge tournament >10 teams (UNICON B) you can't be getting every captain together as it will take too long. Perhaps in instances of tournaments with multiple Pools you should get the remaining teams in the pool to vote?
Benefits: Quick, easy, the committee already understand hockey
Downsides: Teams may have alliances with other teams possibly swaying their vote, large tournaments may not work. Will work for decisions on ONE game or ONE decision but if you a protest about something that affects the entire tournament (that the draw was not done fairly or teams are using oversize wheels in multiple games) and it is a tournament of 40 teams then getting the people in that pool to vote on it is not appropriate as the entire tournament should decide if they think the draw is unfair not just one pool of teams etc.
I would take Stevens proposal and change it a little bit:
the committee is spontaneously made up of the hockey director and one representative of each team, which is not directly affected by the protest, but plays in the corresponding league and is present in the hockey hall. To make a decision, at least 4 teams and the hockey director must be available. In case of a tied vote the hockey directors decision decides it. If not enough members are present, the hockey director tries to create a fair composition of the committee.
- Captain does not have to be in the hall, but the team can send another player in the committee
- More or less flexible
A judge should never pass judgement on himself. You require a kind of hierarchy. This a principle we should not touch other than that we would have vigilantism and mumble.
Protest against decisions of the hockey director: The hockey director should not be a member of this committee, in this case he can only be a witness!
The numbers and the members (within which time, which qualification) of the committee remains a huge problem.
When you say "one representative of each team, which is not directly affected by the protest,..." would be out if the protest is against the draw, location, provided equipment. More or less all teams are affected. Who should diced?
2 other examples for the requirement of a kind of hierarchy.
1. A player got the attention of the referee due to ongoing unsporting behaviour and finally threat against the referee. The referee sent this player off, but not off into the box, he sent him off the gym. Turmoil by his team and protest against the decision of the referee.
2. The hockey director was reported that a player is taking drugs on the grand stand inside the gym hall. The hockey director went to this player and he sent him off the gym. Team members complaining and finally they want to protest against the decision of the hockey director.
>1: In this case the hockey director should be a chief judge (Competition Official). In this position he could diced for himself this protest - no need for a committee. The referee did a wrong decision, his authority was to send a play off the playing field into the penalty box not out of the gym. The hockey director as next hierarchy as chief judge can diced on this protest alone.
>2: In this case the hockey director as the organiser was the man of the house. This protest has to be brought to the host because this might be a legal aspect. Here as well should not a committee from hockey players be involved.
"Protest" is a very tricky rule. I have no solution so far.
I agree the Hockey Director cannot be on the committee for protests involving him. This is tricky.
I do not have a current suggestion for this