Rule 14B.9.2 Right of Way Clarification
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
14B.9.2 Right Of Way
To keep the game going, rule violations that do not influence the course of the game should not be penalized. The following rules apply when riders come into contact with each other:
• No player may endanger another player by forcing them to give way (for example,
to push them toward the wall).
• A player who is idling or resting on the stick must be evaded.
• 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 two players are approaching each other directly or at an obtuse angle, the one
with the ball has the right of way.
• In all cases not mentioned above, it is up to the Referee to make a decision.
This wording suggests that if a goalie is attempting to come out to stop a player from scoring that it is illegal to approach the player, he must move out of the players way. Perhaps this should be clarified/altered in the case of goalies as not allowing a goalie to come out to defend a goal severely reduces goalies ability to stop anything.
Comment
Yes this requires clarification, but not only for the goalie also for a defence player.
If an attacking player having the ball would have always the right of way we can stop playing hockey because the sence/mind/object of this game is gone.
If not finding a better wording I would cancel this bullet point.
Comment
Actually, there is no official goalie defined in the rulebook, therefore (as Herbert said) we have to discuss this point generally for all situations where a player comes with a ball towards an opposite player.
Generally, I agree with the current rulebook that the player with the ball has the right of way. If we delete this bullet point, we are starting to allow body contact to stop an offensive player? So deleting this point is in my opinion not a good idea. But you are right, we might have to clarify.
Together with the first point (No player may endanger another player by forcing them to give way), it should be clear, that the offensive player cannot directly riding into the defensive player even he has the right of way.
We could maybe write: If two players are approaching each other directly or at an obtuse angle, the one with the ball hast the right of way. However, the ball leading player must not force any unexpected ways. (For example if there is an opposite player approaching, the offensive player must also try to not directly ride into the defensive player)
Comment
I think right of way and body contact are two different things. Not giving right of way to the player with the ball is not the same as allowing body contact to stop them.
Saying that the offensive player must not force the defensive player to move but that the offensive player still has right of way still has the problem that to obey the rule any defender must move aside and let them pass.
Comment
I agree that right of way and body contact are two different things, but rule 14B.9.2 Right Of Way states, that "The following rules apply when riders come into contact with each other". So we have to discuss these two things together.
I agree with Christian that we can't cancel the bullet point in dispute.
If the defensive player is idling or resting on his stick he doesn't have to move away (second bullet point).
I think the most important bullet point of the rule "right of way" is No player may endanger another player by forcing them to give way (for example, to push them toward the wall). For me this includes unexpected movements and ignoring the track of other players. To have a safe game all players have to hold back in tricky situations. May be we can strengthen the first bullet point to apply in more situations.
Comment
I agree with Herbert that as the rule exists currently, that right of way must be given to an attacking player, we can stop playing hockey.
The rule is saying a player is coming up to try and score defenders and goalies must not impede their path, therefore you are saying that defending players must move out of the way of them, therefore you are saying they have a free run into the goal.
The rule just doesn't work as it is. If you put it into any other sport, even ones that are non-contact, if the defender has to give way to the attacker it would make defenders useless.
I believe that in a head on situation, the attacker does not have a right of way over the defender, but either player who appears to purposefully ride into a player to stop them will be penalised.
This must be up to referees discretion based on what the situation looks like, if the defender was moving and the attacking player rides into them when they had every opportunity to alter path I dont believe the defender should be penalised, if the attacking player is coming forward and the defending player appears to ride into them then they should be penalised.
Comment
Steven, you got what I mean. For the moment I have no good idea how to formulate this in proper words. As a defender I try to bring my body in the way of the attacking player or better in the way of the ball to the goal and I will not follow all movements and tricks of the attacking player. An attacking player with the ball should not ride into a defender, this would be an offensive foul to be punished due to Exaggerated Roughness (14B.11.3).
Comment
Is there any way we can change the wording of the RIGHT OF WAY rule to fix the problem it creates?
Perhaps?
If two players are approaching each other directly or at an obtuse angle players from both teams must take care to avoid contact. If contact occurs the referee will penalise the team deemed to have caused the contact.
Comment
Good! I think such a rule should work.
Comment
I also like the phrase "deemed to have caused the contact".
Comment
This will work better. Thank you Steven.
Comment
If two players are approaching each other directly or at an obtuse angle, players from both teams must take care to avoid contact. If contact occurs the referee will penalise the team deemed to have caused the contact.
Input a comma (,) to make it read better
Comment
Small modification: I think it should be "the _player_ who caused the
contact", not the _team_:
"If two players are approaching each other directly or at an obtuse
angle, both must take care to avoid contact. If contact occurs the
referee will penalise the _player_ deemed to have caused the contact."
Comment
Agreed
Comment
14B.7 Penalties: "In every instance of a violation of the rules the Referee must penalize the offending team."
The only penalties against a single player are "The Referee can send a player off the field for two minutes, five minutes or for the
remainder of the game. " (14B.7.5 Penalty Box)
From this point of view -team- was correct.
Comment
Hmm, tricky. The _player_ caused the contact but the _team_ is
penalised. Here is another try:
"If two players are approaching each other directly or at an obtuse
angle, both must take care to avoid contact. If contact does occur, the
team of the player deemed to have caused the contact is penalised."
Comment
The player or the team being penalized is the same thing with the only exception being that if there was a really bad contact you may choose to send someone off, which clearly penalizes the player.
I would leave it as the player is penalized as it allows you the ability to send a player off does it not? If you change it to the team is penalized surely the player could complain about being sent off if it is not them that is being penalised.
Comment
I would also leave "the player". This should be clear enough and the referee has (as Steven said) the possibility to send a player off the field.
Comment
Okay, then we're back to this text:
"If two players are approaching each other directly or at an obtuse
angle, both must take care to avoid contact. If contact occurs the
referee will penalise the player deemed to have caused the contact."
Are we ready to start voting on this?
Comment
Yes
Comment
Yes