Rule 14B.9.3. SUB & Rule 14B.9.2 ClarificationThis discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.
Comments about this discussion:
14B.9.3 SUB (Stick Under Bike)
A player who holds his or her stick in a way that someone else rides over or against it is
committing a foul.
Rule 14B 9.2. says that a player who is idling or resting on the stick must be evaded
Rule 14B 9.3. says a player must make sure to hold his or stick in away that someone else does not ride over it or is committing a foul.
If a player is stationary and someone rides over their stationary stick are they penalised for holding their stick in a way that someone else rode over it or is the player who was sub’ed penalised for not evading a stationary player. I.e. Does a stick count as part of the stationary player or is it only the person themselves.
I believe the most clear ruling would be that a stick must ALWAYS be held so someone doesn’t ride over it even when a rider is stationary. As soon as a player rides over it the player who was holding the stick should be penalised.
This needs clarification in the rules to explain it better.
Good input! I see it in your way. If a stick is under a wheel always the player who was holding the stick has to be penalised. It does not matter in which situation.
If we do it the other way round, we have for example to define how close the stick has to be to the resting player. That is almost impossible.
I fully agree that a stationary player commits a foul when someone else rides over his/her stick. However, I think this is already clear in the current rulebook. 14B.9.2 only says that the stationary player must be evaded. It doesn't say that the stick has to be evaded as well.
Stick and unicycle are not considered part of a player. The only rule where player, unicycle and stick are seen as a unit is the definition of ball contact in 14B.8.3: "The stick, the unicycle and the whole body can be used to play the ball. It all counts as a contact..."
I agree with Rolf these rules are clear enough. SIB and SUB committing a foul. E.g. a SUB has >not< to be penalised if this action has more or less no effect to the player, don't forget the advantage rule.
Well in the Australian league we have had countless discussions about whether or not the player AND stick count as the player. Many people believe that you must evade a static person's stick as it counts as one entity with the person and they are not moving it, others believe that the player must hold it in a way that is not interfeering even if the player is static.
I see merits to both arguments, and even now referring will depend on the individual referees opinion of this rule.
Possibly it is due to language barriers but I would argue it is not clear.
And it is not acceptable enough to "ask a player who is very experienced and then you will know how to rule it" as ideally the rules need to be so clear that someone can pick up the rule book with no experience and know exactly what to rule in that situation.
There is no rule saying that player and stick count as one entity (except for ball contact). Since there is no ball involved in our question about the stationary player, what is the reason for assuming such an entity?
So you are saying that the player and stick are one entity if ball contact is involved and not one entity if there is no ball involved?
So if a player is stationary and the ball is hit against their stick by another player without them moving their stick and then someone rides over the stationary players stick attempting to get the ball does the stick count as part of the stationary player or not?
In many instances of sport it makes sense to count the player and their equipment as one entity which is why there is so much discussion about it.
If the wording was clear (which probably involves adding one sentence only) there would obviously be no discussion about it.
I feel like players should be experienced enough to move their stick out of the way of another player.. So if someone rides over a player's stick when they're stationary, it would be the players' fault who was stationary, as their stick was in the way.
They shouldn't really have their stick too far away from their body for it to be an accident anyway.
I do agree with Steve though, as an individual can argue they have followed one rule, even though they have been penalised for the other rule. So in this case, the rules should be worded better to avoid confusion or arguments with a referee when a situation like this occurs.
> So you are saying that the player and stick are one entity if ball contact is involved and not one entity if there is no ball involved?
Sorry, my previous post was not 100% correct. Player, unicycle and stick are _never_ defined as an entity in the current rules, not even regarding the ball contact. What I wanted to say is that the ball contact is defined as a contact with either the stick, the unicycle or the whole body. The word entity is not used at all in the rules.
> So if a player is stationary and the ball is hit against their stick by another player without them moving their stick and then someone rides over the stationary players stick attempting to get the ball does the stick count as part of the stationary player or not?
In this case the stationary player made a ball contact but the stick does not count as part of the stationary player.
> In many instances of sport it makes sense to count the player and their equipment as one entity which is why there is so much discussion about it.
I found two rules where defining a "player/unicycle/stick-entity" might be useful:
14B.7.1 Free Shot: "Opposing players must keep a distance with their unicycles and their sticks of at least 2.0 m from the ball." --> "Opposing player/unicycle/stick-entities must keep a distance of at least 2.0 m from the ball."
14B.8.4 Obstacle: "The player is considered an obstacle if the player, the unicycle or stick is hit by the ball..." --> "The player is considered an obstacle if the player/unicycle/stick-entity is hit by the ball..."
I could not find any other rules where "player" should mean "player/unicycle/stick-entity".
Since the rules are not clear (at least in Australia), we should try to improve the wording of the rule Rule 14B 9.2 and 14B 9.3
- Rule 14B 9.2. [...] A player who is idling or resting on the stick must be evaded.
- Rule 14B 9.3. A player who holds his or her stick in a way that someone else rides over or against it is committing a foul.
Proposal for new rule:
- Rule 14B 9.2. [...] A player who is idling or resting on the stick must be evaded. However, this player is committing a foul when another player rides over the stick.
- Rule 14B 9.3. A player who holds his or her stick in a way that someone else rides over or against it is always committing a foul independent of the situation.
- Rule 14B 9.2. [...] A player who is idling or resting on the stick must be evaded. However, the idling or resting player must ensure the stick does not SUB players as per rule 14B 9.3
- Rule 14B 9.3. A player who holds his or her stick in a way that someone else rides over or against it is always committing a foul regardless of the situation.
A few changes in bold?
Steven that looks good.
OK, bring to proposal.
I created a proposal but then I noticed that Steven apparently also created a proposal. It's a bit confusing but we actually used the same text so we can still vote on it...
Is it possible to vote on this? I cant see where
The system automatically creates a "Review period" before the voting can
start. For this proposal, the review lasts until 22 December. I guess we
can start voting on 23 December.
Is everyone still here in the time from Xmas to New Year? If not, please
let me know! I don't want that we miss any deadlines while people are
unable to react.
Regarding myself, I will be away with only limited email access until 2
January. I will be able to read all posts in the discussion but probably
won't have the time for detailed answers.