Draft of 2017 Rulebook - check for typos!
Comments about this discussion:
Started
I have completed a draft of the updated hockey chapter. It can be viewed as a part of the IUF Rulebook 2017 (Draft). Just click on hockey in the table of contents on the second page and it should take you right to the relevant chapter.
2017 Draft Rulebook PDF
Rolf has already completed a read though, and offered a few suggestions which I have already applied. If you have time, please read through this document and post here if you see any issues or typos.
There is also an automatically generated "difference" pdf, which compares the 2017 Draft to the 2016 Reorganized Rulebook. Click here for the diff pdf (and scroll down or click for hockey):
2016 to 2017 Diff PDF
Note: Other chapters in the 2017 Draft rulebook (and diff pdf) are not complete yet. Reading chapters other than hockey is not really worth your time.
Comment
First impression, it sounds good, no suggestions so far.
Comment
The game is non-contact in order not to endanger others. Only in the vicinity of the ball, the opponent’s stick may be touched by the own stick. However, this contact may not be hard.
Should this be "The game is non-contact in order to not endanger others."
Comment
It's rather the same for me, but if I had to choose which version I preferred, I would pick your suggestion. I'm curious which way is easier for a non-native speaker to understand.
Comment
No one else responded here against it, so I made the edit Steven suggested.
Comment
14B.10 Safety on page 200. Should have a space between 10 and Safety is my guess?
Comment
"the ball was traveling directly toward the goal and would definitely have entered the goal without being touched by another player, a penalty goal may be awarded. In this case the attacking team is awarded a goal."
Would this make more sense as just being "...entered the goal without being touched by another player, a penalty goal may be awarded to the attacking team."
Is the second line of "in this case the attacking team is awarded a goal" needed?
Comment
Sorry that is 14.B.6.3 Penalty Goal Page 203 and beginning of 204
Comment
Many of these are changes based on how it would be better worded in English (In my opinion). Mainly improved sentence structure or more official sounding words. Some are typos. One or two are actually written incorrectly which changes the meaning of the rule.
Appologies for the rules that we have already discussed and accepted but somehow missed typos. (The penalty box rules have a fair few mistakes)
If anything needs to be ignored then ignore it.
I haven’t checked if all the headings, rule numbers and page numbers match up with what is in the contents page at the beginning so if someone could check that
14B.6.2. 6.5M
"If legal playing would have led to a direct chance to score a goal"
Usually "If legal PLAY would have led to a direct..." would make more sense.
14B.6.4. Face off
"Playing starts when the ball touches the ground"
Usually "Play starts when the ball touches the ground" would make more sense.
14B.6.5. Penalty Box
Under 2 minutes
"Intentionally having too many PLAYER on the field."
Should be players.
Under 5 minutes
"Repeated fouls of a player who has already received 2 minutes before"
1. It should be repeated fouls BY a player not OF a player. the intention was if someone repeatedly fouls they get sent off for longer, not if you foul someone who has been sent off before you get sent off for double the time they did.
2. Is messy and not very good sentence structure. "Repeated fouls by a player who has PREVIOUSLY received a 2 minute penalty" reads better and makes more sense.
Off for the remainder of the game
Repeated fouls of a player who has already received 5 minutes before.
In line with the under 5 minutes. It should be repeated fouls BY a palyer who has previously received a 5 minute penalty.
Repeated violence of a player who has already received 5 minutes before
Should be Repeated violence BY a player who has previously received a 5 minute penalty.
14B.7.1 Game Duration
The play time is given by the playing schedule. It is a relative play time.
"The play time is given by the playing schedule and is a relative play time."
14B.7.2 Penalty Shootout
"It is possible that one player can make more than one shot. However, in all cases at least two other players have to make a shot before the same player can shoot again"
Should make be "take"??? usually we would say take the shot to our teammates not "make the shot"
No goal can be scored on a rebound of any kind (an exception being the ball off the goal post, then the goalkeeper and then directly into the goal)
A ball may rebound off a goalkeeper and into goal so it should be goal post OR the goalkeeper not goalpost, THEN the goalkeeper
14B.8.1 General Considerations
The players must take care not to hit an opponent with their stick, especially after a shot. Only in the vicinity of the ball, they may touch an opponent’s stick with their stick to block them
"Only in the vicinity of the ball MAY A PLAYER touch an opponent’s stick with their stick to block them" The original is worded poorly.
14B.8.2 Right Of Way
• 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 having the ball may choose the direction.
"If both are evenly side-by-side, the one WITH POSSESSION OF the ball may choose the direction" The original is worded poorly.
14B.9.3 Ball In The Outside Of The Net
If the ball becomes lodged in the outside of the goal net, or if the ball entered the goal through the net from the side or the back through a hole in the net, a free shot is given against the team whose player last played the ball.
"If the ball becomes lodged in the outside of the goal net, or if the ball entered the goal through A HOLE IN THE BACK OR SIDE OF the net, a free shot is given against the team whose player last played the ball. " Original wording is poor and a very long sentence making it read badly.
14B.10.1 Clothing
. Shoes must be worn and shoe laces must be short or tucked in.
SHOELACES is one word.
14C.2.2 The Referees
The two Referees are positioned one on each side
"The two Referees are positioned ON ALTERNATE SIDES" in english this is more direct and more likely to be found in an official rulebook.
14C.2.6 General
When two or more players fall and it is unclear whether a foul occurred, the Referees can interrupt the game and then continue it with a face-off. This prevents that even more players are drawn into the situation.
"This prevents more players being drawn into the situation." Better english more likely to be found in an official rulebook
14D.1 Venue
Hockey should be play in a gym that is large enough to house the playing field
Hockey should be PLAYED in a gym that is large enough to house the playing field
Comment
Thanks Steven for all the edits. It's quite helpful to have another native speaker read through the rules. I have accepted the majority of your suggestions, unless noted below:
>14.B.6.3 Penalty Goal
>"the ball was traveling directly toward the goal and would definitely have entered the goal without being touched by another player, a penalty goal may be awarded. In this case the attacking team is awarded a goal."
>Would this make more sense as just being "...entered the goal without being touched by another player, a penalty goal may be awarded to the attacking team."
>Is the second line of "in this case the attacking team is awarded a goal" needed?
This feels a bit like a change to me. I would like some input from other committee members.
>I haven’t checked if all the headings, rule numbers and page numbers match up with what is in the contents page at the beginning so if someone could check that.
These are generated automatically by the publishing software, so they are correct by definition.
14B.7.2 Penalty Shootout
"It is possible that one player can make more than one shot. However, in all cases at least two other players have to make a shot before the same player can shoot again"
> Should make be "take"??? ...
"Make" and "Take" are both acceptable English but take is probably better. I accept your change.
14B.7.2 Penalty Shootout
No goal can be scored on a rebound of any kind (an exception being the ball off the goal post, then the goalkeeper and then directly into the goal)
>A ball may rebound off a goalkeeper and into goal so it should be goal post OR the goalkeeper not goalpost, THEN the goalkeeper
I'm not exactly sure what the proposed change is here, and if it's just an edit or an actual correction of the rule? Please respond to this.
14C.2.2 The Referees
The two Referees are positioned one on each side
Steven suggested: "The two Referees are positioned ON ALTERNATE SIDES"
I corrected it to: "The two Referees are positioned ON OPPOSITE SIDES"
The updated rulebook is available at the same links posted at the beginning of this discussion.
Comment
Thanks, Steven, for the careful proof-reading of the rules! I fully
agree with most of your edits with one major exception (Penalty
Shootout) plus a few minor comments as listed below:
> 14B.7.2 Penalty Shootout
> No goal can be scored on a rebound of any kind (an exception being the
> ball off the goal post, then the goalkeeper and then directly into the
> goal)
>
> A ball may rebound off a goalkeeper and into goal so it should be goal
> post OR the goalkeeper not goalpost, THEN the goalkeeper
This edit would change the meaning and I think we should keep the
original meaning. It happens indeed occasionally that the ball first
touches the goal post, and _then_ the goalkeeper (from behind) and then
it goes into the goal. Maybe we can replace the word THEN by AND/OR:
"(an exception being the ball off the goal post, AND/OR the goalkeeper
and then directly into the goal)"
> 14B.8.2 Right Of Way
> 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 having the
> ball may choose the direction.
>
> "If both are evenly side-by-side, the one WITH POSSESSION OF the ball
Should it be "WITH possession of the ball" or "IN possession of the
ball"?
> 14C.2.2 The Referees
> "The two Referees are positioned ON ALTERNATE SIDES"
I agree with Scott that "OPPOSITE sides" sounds better than "ALTERNATE
sides".
> 14.B.6.3 Penalty Goal
I agree with Steven that the redundancy should be removed:
"...the ball was traveling directly toward the goal and would definitely
have entered the goal without being touched by another player, a penalty
goal may be awarded to the attacking team."
Comment
I found another redundancy. I think in section 14B.6.2 (6.5 M) we can
change
"An attacking player on field is fouled"
to
"An attacking player is fouled"
Of course the player is on the field, where else should he/she be?
Comment
> 14B.7.2 Penalty Shootout
The original wording "No goal can be scored on a rebound of any kind (an exception being the ball off the goal post, then the goalkeeper and then directly into the goal)"
With the current definition this means
If a ball bounces off the goal post then into the goalkeeper and into goal - Goal is valid
If a ball bounces off the goal post then into the goal - Goal is invalid
If a ball bounces off the goalkeepers wheel into the goal - Goal is invalid.
This is because it clearly states that no rebound of any kind is valid EXCEPT the one given in the brackets (which says it has to hit both the post AND the goalkeeper to be considered a valid rebound)
Changing it to No goal can be scored on a rebound of any kind (an exception being the ball off the goal post OR the goalkeeper and then directly into the goal)"
Means
If a ball bounces off the goal post then into the goalkeeper and into goal - Goal is most likely valid as the rule states that the goal post and goalkeeper are both acceptable rebounds however it is not quite clear as it doesn't state that if it hits BOTH it is still a valid rebound.
If a ball bounces off the goal post then into the goal - Goal is valid
If a ball bounces off the goalkeepers wheel into the goal - Goal is valid.
Based on this I think you are correct Rolf. It should be No goal can be scored on a rebound of any kind (an exception being the ball off the goal post AND/OR the goalkeeper and then directly into the goal)"
Meaning
If a ball bounces off the goal post then into the goalkeeper and into goal - Goal is valid
If a ball bounces off the goal post then into the goal - Goal is valid
If a ball bounces off the goalkeepers wheel into the goal - Goal is valid.
> 14B.8.2 Right Of Way
> 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 having the
> ball may choose the direction.
>
> "If both are evenly side-by-side, the one WITH POSSESSION OF the ball
Should it be "WITH possession of the ball" or "IN possession of the
ball"?
In Australia "with possession" is quite common. We talk about "the player with possession has stepped every opponent who has tried to tackle him" rather than "the player in possession has stepped every opponent.." HOWEVER both are technically correct. I would use WITH not IN myself however its sort of an either or and perhaps it is an Australian thing. Scott can probably make the final call on that.
> 14C.2.2 The Referees
> "The two Referees are positioned ON ALTERNATE SIDES"
I agree with Scott that "OPPOSITE sides" sounds better than "ALTERNATE
sides".
I agree
Comment
Thanks again.
I have updated 14B.8.2 Right Of Way to:
... "No goal can be scored on a rebound of any kind (an exception being the ball off the goal post AND/OR the goalkeeper and then directly into the goal)"
I agree that this is both the intention and most logical definition of the rule.
I have also made all other changes as suggested.
"with possession" vs. "in possession":
Both versions are certainly correct English and common ways of usage. A quick google shows that "in possession of the ball" comes up 50 times more frequently than "with possession of the ball" however both terms are used in official playing rules of different professional ball sports. Since "in" was much more frequent, and suggested by a non-native speaker (who is a large portion of the IUF's audience), I am inclined to use the "in" version.
Once again, these changes have been added to version of the pdf which is available from the links at the top of the discussion.
Comment
Thanks Scott
Comment
Don't worry, if you don't understand German, the following text is not
important for you :-)
Ich habe die neuen Regeln jetzt ins Deutsche übersetzt. Bevor die
Übersetzung von der IUF offiziell anerkannt werden kann, ist es aber
noch nötig, dass eine zweite Person sorgfältig Korrektur liest.
Freiwillige?
Comment
I will do this or tomorrow night.
Maybe Nicolai or Christian will help as well therefore two nations with German language would be involved.
Comment
Scott has a web tool (transifex) for the translation. I have uploaded
the German text there. Please ask Scott about the details if you
volunteer for proof-reading!
Comment
Ich würde mich zum Korrekturlesen anbieten.
Comment
Thanks, Herbert and Nicolai! Scott, can you show them how to access the
transifex web page as a reviewer?
Comment
No contact to/from Scott, no access to transiflex, therefore no typo check so far.
Comment
Any word?
Comment
I still haven't heard anything from Scott. Maybe he's on holiday and
offline??? I will try to check if anyone else from the IUF can help us
here...
Sorry that I announced that we could start with our hockey-2.0
discussion at the beginning of March but nothing has happened yet. I
hope it is okay for you to wait until we've completed the 2017 hockey
rulebook. Actually, we can't even invite any additional people to the
hockey-2.0 discussion until Scott is back.
Comment
By the look of facebook Scott is at the 2017 Moab Muni Fest and will be there for a few days at least
Comment
Sorry for the late response. I was indeed at the Moab Muni fest and am actually still traveling. However, I had a few minutes to write up the reviewing process in the IUF Translation Wiki. Herbert and Nicolai, please read the wiki document in its entirety and then sign up for an account and I will mark you as two as reviewers.
Rolf, is there any interest from additional persons for joining hockey 2.0 other than the one AUS that Steven already mentioned?
Comment
Welcome back, Scott, I hope you had a good time at the Moab Muni fest!
Jan Logemann from the German unicycle hockey league committee would like
to join Hockey-2.0. I'll send you the details via email...
Comment
Scott did you mark us as reviewers?
I think not or else I didn't get how to review.
Comment
Nicolai, sorry for the delay, I have added you as a reviewer.
I still have no request from Christian on reviewing.
Comment
I don't remember Christian saying that he would proof read the text. Herbert said he would.
Comment
Can we look at opening the second discussion...
Comment
Sorry Rolf, my mistake. But I have no request from Herbert either.
Steven, my priority has been on finishing up the Rulebook and publishing it. That is just about complete, so hopefully we can start this soon. Thanks for the patience.