Rule 14B.11.2 The lower end of the stick Clarification
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
14B.11.2 The Lower End Of The Stick
The lower end of the stick must always be below the players’ hips to avoid injury to
other players. Exception: In direct vicinity of one’s own goal, the lower end of the stick
can be raised as high as the crossbar of the goal.
"players' hips" can mean that the lower end of the stick must be below a) each players own hip or b) the hip of every player on the field
Alteration in wording would make this more clear for referees.
Comment
I think most players assume that the rule applies to each players own hip. If we agree, how can we express it in a concise way? Hint: I want help from the native speakers :-) Here are some ideas:
The lower end of the stick must always be below the players' own hips...
The lower end of the stick must always be below each player's own hip...
Comment
I do not agree with the player's own hip.
The lower end of the stick is a danger for the other players not for the player himself. In addition if the rule is for each players own hip a tall player can lift his stick higher than other players, this is not fair.
If in a game there are some kids playing against tall opponents their head is at a hight were the opposing player can have his lower end of the stick, this has to be prohibited.
In Switzerland we agreed that the lower end of the stick must always be below the hips of all players involved.
Comment
The problem with that ruling Nicolai is that it is almost impossible to rule correctly. When a player in the bottom left hand corner of field makes a shot and the player in the top right hand corner of the field is short it is impossible to try and assess if that was a legal shot or not. All of a sudden you have goals that are accepted because it was too hard to judge height but then the same shot next to another player may get penalised. Looking at high stick rules form other sports it is based on the players own shoulder height.
It brings in too many grey areas to rule it based on the entire field of players.
Ice Hockey NHL Rules
Rule 60 – High-sticking 60.1 High-sticking - A “high stick” is one which is carried above the height of the opponent’s shoulders. Players must be in control and responsible for their stick. However, a player is permitted accidental contact on an opponent if the act is committed as a normal windup or follow through of a shooting motion, or accidental contact on the opposing center who is bent over during the course of a face-off. A wild swing at a bouncing puck would not be considered a normal windup or follow through and any contact to an opponent above the height of the shoulders shall be penalized accordingly.
Field Hockey - Wikipedia
Players may not play or attempt to play at the ball above their shoulders unless trying to save a shot that could go into the goal, in which case they are permitted to stop the ball or deflect it safely away. A swing, as in a hit, at a high shot at the goal (or even wide of the goal) will probably be considered dangerous play if at opponents within 5 m and such a stroke would be contrary to rule in these circumstances anyway.
Comment
The General Considerations (4B.9.1) say, "...All players must take care not to endanger others. ... The players must take care not to hit an opponent with their stick, .." Which parts of a body have high risk to be injured? In my opinion head and neck, but not the hip. I looked up in medical table and found that 12-years-old kids have a medium height of roughly 1.5 m. This would be 30 cm over inside height of the crossbar of the standard goal.
Therefore I suggest a new >standard< height for high stick with 1.2 m (This level is under the crossbar of the goal) not only "in direct vicinity of one’s own goal" but also everywhere on the playing (This should suit to over 80% of all players). Coming back to the General Consideration, if in the opinion of the referee players are to close to each over and a stick would be a danger to somebody's health, in this case the real height of the lower end of the stick can be lower than 1,2 m and he should stop the game immediately.
And if young and shorter kids are playing (or due to agreement of the evolved teams) the referee of this game should have the power to lower the >standard< height for high stick to all players notice before this game starts.
Comment
I like this ruling, crossbar of goal across the whole field with penalty for making contact with someone with stick may work well.
I think the current ruling of hip height rule actually makes it harder to referee and potentially makes it dangerous for players, many years of stopping the follow through of shooting could lead to injury. In all sports the follow throw enables the dissipation of energy and reduces likelihood of overuse injury.
I will have to think a bit more thoroughly about it. It is annoying to have different rulings based on who is playing and then having to change the rule for small kids is annoying. However it is likely to improve most A grade play as small kids do not play in any of those games.
Comment
I think the current rule is still the best and most fair (should be each persons hip). This is how it is in all the other hockey sports out there and makes the most sense. Let's just say we have a midget (sorry if that's the wrong word to use) playing, if everyone had to go by his hips, that would not be good. Being a tall person myself, if we limit it to the goal posts it gives a disadvantage to tall people and favors small people as they can take a bigger swing. Due to the fact I do not know of any injuries due to high sticks in unicycle hockey with the current rules, I would stay with the current rules. If say there were a ton of injuries then I would be more likely to look into the problem but for now, I really don't see this as an issue unless someone can tell me that there has been lots (any?) of injuries.
Comment
I see the difficulty of ruling it correctly therefore i suggest the hips of all players involved. For me these are all players in the players vicinity. So if the player is alone he can swing his stick up to his hips but in situations with several players the maximal height may be lower (depending on the players around him).
A constant height for all players does also disadvantage tall players, so it doesn’t make any sense.
Am i wrong or does the NHL rules refer on the opponents shoulders?: A “high stick” is one which is carried above the height of the opponent’s shoulders.
Comment
You are correct Nicolai they do refer to the opponents shoulders.
What about a high stick is shoulder height of the shortest player. That would be much more useable in games.
Comment
Let me try to do a small summary with the different possibilities and I give also my opinion with advantages and disadvantages
A) The lower end of the stick must always be below the players' own hips
Here we have to consider also 4B.9.1) "...All players must take care not to endanger others.
+ Easy for referee to know which hips count
- Still a bit dangerous for opponent which are smaller
- More discussions whether a player endanger other or not
B) The lower end of the stick must always be below each players' hips
- Almost impossible for referees to see whether it is a high stick or not
- Small disadvantage for the tall players
C) The lower end of the stick must always be below the (direct involved) opponent’s and own hips
This is actually the idea from Nicolai but another definition. This include the player himself and also the players very close to him. (Let’s say more or less in the radius of the hockeystick)
+ Easy for referee because he doesn’t have to consider all players for a decision
+ Safe for all involved players
+ Not necessary to consider 4B.9.1. in this situation and no discussions
D) Standard height with 1.20 m
+ Less danger in some situations
- Disadvantage for the tall players
- Almost impossible for referees to see if it is a high stick or not
E) The lower end of the stick must always be below the opponent’s shoulder
In my eyes this is makes no sense. We don’t want to do the sport more dangerous.
--> I personally prefer C, it is the most safe option and also easy for referees. If not C than A.
one more question: what ist actually the lower end of the stick exactly?
Comment
I prefer also C for the reasons Christian mentioned.
For me the lower end of the stick is the blade (the broad and curved part of the lower end) of the stick.
The blade is the most dangerous part of the stick because it has the highest velocity.
If we say e.g. the lower end of the stick must always be below the players own hip then the whole blade have to be below this height.
I suggest we replace "the lower end ..." with "the whole blade ..."
This should clarify the rule.
Comment
I also prefer option C. Here is a suggestion for the new text:
"The whole blade must always be below the hips of all players in the vicinity."
Of course, it is difficult to define "vicinity" exactly. I would leave it to the referee to decide when someone in the vicinity may be endangered.
Comment
I prefer C.
Vicinity should be the radius of a hockey stick around.
Based on these rulings players should be allowed to have their stick above waist height if there is no one is in the vicinity. I think a fair few sports only count it as high if there are players in the vicinity?
Comment
I still prefer A because option C limits tall peoples swing and disadvantages them. Say a really really short kid is playing against a super tall person, this means the short kid can take a much bigger swing than that tall person. This rule is all about safety and if we went with option A, then both players have the exact same swing and it's fair, plus the waist of the tall player isn't as tall as the face/head of the short person so it's really not putting anyone at risk/danger. Unless someone has proof of accidents happening recently, I don't see the need to change the current rule except to clarify that it means one's own hips.
Furthermore I don't think it's a good idea to have people riding around with sticks above their head even when no one is in their vicinity. To me this would be making the rules more dangerous cause maybe someone doesn't see someone behind them and could accidentally hit someone in the face/head.
Comment
What about
The lower end of the stick must always be below the shoulders of the opponents in the viscinity.
PROS:
SAFER for player taking the shot: The follow through in sport (cricket, tennis, golf) enables the dissipation of force over a longer duration reducing sudden forces on the player (required to stop a fast moving stick in a split second). This will should reduce instances of tennis/golfers elbow and reduce liklihood of long term use injury to a players back.
Safe for all involved players (below shoulder height is still safe, it is rare that players get hit with sticks and anywhere below shoulders is safe and will not cause a real injury)
Fairer for a tall player who is further off the ground and therefore can only take little shots at the ball if he can't go above hip height of a short player.
Easy for referee because he doesn’t have to consider all players for a decision
CONS:
Some faster shots will be possible
Comment
I prefer C from Christian's summary.
I'm unsure about 'The lower end of the stick must always be below the shoulders of the opponents in the viscinity.'.. As it will increase the chances of a player getting hit in the face with a stick.. Even though other sports allow it, I can't think of a sport where the opponents have close encounters like ours with some form of stick/bat, and do not wear any helmet/face protection.
Has anyone ever tested a 'below the shoulders rule'? I imagine for less experienced players, a high stick would be more common.. Whereas with more experienced players, a player could hit an opponents stick with a lot of power/shoot with more power.. Which could end in tears
Comment
Yes I agree and don't think below the shoulders would make this rule any safer but more dangerous.
Comment
If we are going to maximise safety we should rule below hips of the opponent, it is unfair for tall players playing against short opponents however if you have a very tall player playing against a 9yr old then you very well may have them shooting at face height of young person if you use A.
In safety sake we would need to use
C) The lower end of the stick must always be below the (direct involved) opponent’s and own hips
Comment
If we are going to maximize safety we should rule below the knees of opponents! lol :)
Seriously though I'm curious why this rule has come up as I thought it was always known that it is the players own hip (even though the rule might not be 100% clear) and it has worked in every Unicon I have been to (12 in a row) and every other national competitions I have been to and I'm almost positive I have never seen nor heard of anyone getting hit in the face with a stick. Did someone get hurt at this past Unicon? If not, then why change a rule that seems to work, is safe and fair for all players?
Comment
@Jamey: Sorry, I cannot agree with your statement. A rulebook is made to exactly clarify the rules. Even most of the player have the same view for this rule, it is necessary to have an exact definition.
And for me the idea is not only to prevent getting hit in the face but also for example to protect the hands...
Comment
Jamey you argued that "option C limits tall peoples swing and disadvantages them". But if we take option A) and a ball is in the air at a height over the hips of the smaller player only the tall player can hit the ball with the stick! This is also not fair! So i think we can't find a rule which is totally fair for all players.
For safety reason (small players) and fairness (every player can swing up to his hips if he has enough space) option C is the best option.
Suggestions (already mentioned):
C1: The whole blade of the stick must always be below the (direct involved) opponent’s and own hips OR
C2: The whole blade of the stick must always be below the hips of all players in the vicinity.
Comment
Good point Nilcolai. Never thought about that. Guess it will be unfair to someone. Although I'm still curious why we are changing a rule for safety when no one has mentioned anyone ever getting hurt with the current rules. I understand this thread was started due to clarifying what the current rules mean. I'm pretty sure this rule has been used with the players own hips at every unicon so far.
Comment
As Christian said the rulebook needs to be clear. Not being written clearly is just a poor effort on our part and it is not appropriate to say we don't need to make wording clearer as people have been ruling it this way for ages.
It needs to be written in a way that someone from Zambia who has no other unicyclists to clarify with can pick up the rule book and go "ah this is how I should rule this". In the current state it is not at that level.
While we are clarifying what the rules previously have meant (with poor wording) we may as well discuss any possible improvements that can be made.
I think what I have put below makes reasonable sense but could still be improved. I took "whole" out from whole blade as the blade is the entire head so I don't think whole adds anything to the definition.
At all times the blade of a players stick must be below their own hips and the hips of all players in the vicinity. The vicinity of a player is defined as within the radius of a hockey stick from the player.
Comment
@Jamey: As I already said: In Switzerland we agreed that the lower end of the stick must always be below the hips of all players involved. Also at the last UNICON I referring to the hips of all players involved.
I'm not sure but is it necessary to define what is "the vicinity of a player"? I think this could also be in the discretion of the referee.
If we want to define the vicinity, I'd prefer a bit larger radius because then a player has also to care attention to not e.g. swing his stick to high when a player is at a distance where he may be in the radius of the stick.
Therefore I suggest:
At all times the blade of a players stick must be below their own hips and the hips of all players in the vicinity. The vicinity of a player is defined as twice the radius of a hockey stick from the player.
Comment
I would not exactly define the vicinity. I think it is up to the referee to decide whether a opponent is in the vicinity or not. If this player could be affected or endangered by the high stick he is in the vicinity.
A definition with a radius of a stick or twice the radius is for me not necessary.
I see the two following options:
1) At all times the blade of a players stick must be below their own hips and the hips of all players in the vicinity.
2) At all times the blade of a players stick must be below their own hips and the hips of all players in the vicinity, which could be endangered by a high stick.
Comment
I agree with Christian. The key point of this safety rule is to avoid a
dangerous situation. Therefore, instead of defining "vicinity" based on
the length of the hockey stick, rather something like this:
"The blade of the stick must always be below the players' own hips and
the hips of all players in the vicinity who might be endangered."
Comment
I like Rolf´s version. Vicinity is not only a question of a fixed distance, it is more a question of distance and time/speed. A situation is dangerous if the referee thinks it might be endangered.
Comment
What should happen with this sentence: "In direct vicinity of one’s own goal, the lower end of the stick can be raised as high as the crossbar of the goal."
Most of you are not happy with the hight of a "shoulder" or with 1.20m (= level of goals crossbar). We stick to two levels of hip for safety reasons. Therefore we should get read of above sentence. [Anyway during my last training I recognized that the hip of tall players are nearly on the hight of the crossbar of the goal and this should make the tall Jamey happy. Disadvantage for shot players on small unicycles.]
Comment
> What should happen with this sentence: "In direct vicinity of one’s
> own goal, the lower end of the stick can be raised as high as the
> crossbar of the goal."
I would like to provide some background information why this rule was
introduced into the rulebook. Without this rule, if the goalie stops the
ball with the stick just below the crossbar, it depends on the height of
the goalie if this was legal or not. For a little kid, it is illegal and
clearly, a penalty goal must be given. If the goalie is tall, it would
be okay. This seems unfair and very difficult to judge. That's why this
rule was introduced.
Unfortunately, now many players say (or think) "I'm more or less in the
vicinity of the goal, I'm allowed to raise my stick". This was not the
original intention of the rule.
A possible solution could be to remove the rule, and simply state that
"the opposing team gets a free shot (not a 6.5m or penalty goal)". This
is similar to "14B.8.9 Ball In Spokes" where we also say " (not a 6.5m
penalty)".
Comment
Good input Herbert. And Rolf, what you wrote is a possible solution for me. But anyway, it would be a bit strange to somehow 'allow' a violation (high stick) in order to prevent a goal, because it only results in a corner....
Another idea could be to write accordingly:
"In direct vicinity of one’s own goal, the lower end of the stick can be raised as high as the crossbar of the goal without endanger other players."
However, then we could also argue to allow high stick on shoulder without endanger other players. But I do not like this. So, this rule seems to be a bit difficult to handle... :-)
Comment
Do we need to allow the saving of goals by allowing higher stick in goal? Can we not just keep it hip height for all and goalies can use their hands to save balls above hip height?
Surely it is extremely rare cases where someone can save a ball that is A. Higher than hip height and B. Too far to reach with the hand. C. Still reachable with the stick.
A. Higher than hip height
B. Too far to reach with the hand.
C. Still reachable with the stick.
Could we not just put this in the category of the opposition shot well enough to get it into a top right or left corner that was higher than hip height and far enough away from goalies hand to make it hard for the goalie?
Comment
I agree with Steven (although I am tall so I might be biased.). People can still use their hands, bodies or the upper part of their stick to block high shots. Yes it gives a slight advantage to taller players but not if there is a short player in the vicinity. If teams think this gives a big advantage then they always have the option of putting their tallest person in goal.
Comment
I prefer if the rule Herbert come up with 2 days ago would stay in the rulebook. It is of course a possible danger but in most cases this shouldn't endanger anyone. In addition there is the rule 14B.9.1 General Considerations which says that "All players must take care not to endanger others" AND "The players must take care not to hit an opponent with their stick." Therefore raising the lower end of the stick is anyway only allowed if it is done in a safe manner.
As Rolf said the rule is to have a possibility to prevent a goal being shot with the stick. Maybe the rule should explicitly define this:
In direct vicinity of one’s own goal, the lower end of the stick can be raised as high as the crossbar of the goal to prevent a goal being scored.
This would say that for other things like hitting the ball away, raising the stick at the height of the hips is not allowed.
I could also agree with not allowing to raise the stick to the crossbar but think also about the limit of raising the stick:
If the lower end of the stick is below the hips the shot is correctly parried. But if the lower end is just at the height of the hips the referee has to give a penalty goal (or a corner which is also strange for the reasons Christian mentioned). This situation is very "black-white" and could therefore lead to discussions. This problem does not exists with allowing to raise the lower end of the stick to the crossbar of the goal.
Comment
As Rolf said the rule is to have a possibility to prevent a goal being shot with the stick. Maybe the rule should explicitly define this:
In direct vicinity of one’s own goal, the lower end of the stick can be raised as high as the crossbar of the goal to prevent a goal being scored.
This would say that for other things like hitting the ball away, raising the stick at the height of the hips is not allowed.
Hitting the ball away is still done to prevent a goal being scored. It would be hard to word this to make it so only a direct save with the stick is allowed at crossbar height but nothing else.
How many situations does this apply in that people save goals above hip height with the stick? Surely it is extremely rare
Comment
Hmm. New problems to think about!
Comment
Steven your right this would be very difficult. What about:
In direct vicinity of one’s own goal, the lower end of the stick can be raised as high as the crossbar of the goal to block a shot on the goal. ?
As I already said it would be very difficult for the referees to judge it correctly if we don't allow rising the stick higher in the vicinity of one's own goal. Therefore I suggest we leave the rule as it is or do word the rule better.
Comment
I think if we are indeed thinking about safety than sticks should never be raised about the hips of people in the vicinity no matter if they are the goalie or not. Even if they are blocking a goal, if another rider is going super fast and runs into a high stick that would not be good.
Comment
Because we will probably change the stick height rule to
"The blade of the stick must always be below the players' own hips and the hips of all players in the vicinity who might be endangered.
I feel we MUST allow defensive players the ability to block a shot on goal up to height of the cross bar. Otherwise if you have a short person whos hip is half height of the crossbar then the goalie 1. is disadvantaged quite a fair amount 2. must make decision on how to save a ball based on who is in his viscinity. I think this would be very difficult and unfair to expect a goalie to have to change how he reacts in a split second based on someone shorter riding towards him.
We have discussed that the average height has 99% of people's head above crossbar height, if you couple this with the wording from Nicolai
In direct vicinity of one’s own goal, the lower end of the stick can be raised as high as the crossbar of the goal to block a shot on the goal. ?
Then it is an extremely low chance of anyone getting injured in the face, 1) because players can only raise stick to block a shot on goal not clear balls or shoot and therefore a slower stick movement, 2) because 99% of players will have their head above crossbar height.
We cannot avoid all injury at every point in time as it is a competitive sport but we can minimise by using appropriate rules. I feel that Nicolai's wording would reduce any chance of injury to a VERY low level and therefore would be acceptable to safety as well as be easier for referees and goalies to deal with.
Comment
Summery, I hope I get it right: "The lower end of the stick" nobody likes to use it was substituted with "blade". For the heading I sugestst to delite "The lower end of the stick"and substituted this with "High Stick" (So we know what we talking about.).
old:
14B.11.2 The Lower End Of The Stick
The lower end of the stick must always be below the players’ hips to avoid injury to
other players. Exception: In direct vicinity of one’s own goal, the lower end of the stick
can be raised as high as the crossbar of the goal.
new:
14B.11.2 High Stick
"The blade of the stick must always be below the players' own hips and the hips of all players in the vicinity who might be endangered.
Exception: In direct vicinity of one’s own goal, the blade of the stick can be raised as high as the crossbar of the goal to block a shot on the goal.
Comment
I agree with substituting with HIGH STICK. It intuitively makes more sense when you read it.
"The blade of the stick must be below the players own hips and the hips of all players in the vicinity who might be endangered.
Exception: In the goal area of one’s own half, the blade of the stick can be raised as high as the crossbar of the goal to block a shot on the goal.
Removed "always" from the first sentence as I think in english it is redundant.
Changed "direct viscinity" to "goal area" this is the area between 6.5m mark and back wall. This gives an actual area which removes the problem of "direct viscinity" of goal being too vague. The players can still only lift it higher to block a shot so there should be no issue with this
Comment
I do like blade better but is it the top of the blade or bottom of the blade?
Comment
We can bring this "...the blade of the stick can be raised as high as the crossbar of the goal..." in a negative wording, e.g. " ... no part of the blade must be raised higher as the crossbar of the goal ..."
Comment
I think we have a majority now for the following change:
-----
OLD:
14B.11.2 The Lower End Of The Stick
The lower end of the stick must always be below the players’ hips to
avoid injury to other players.
NEW:
14B.11.2 High Stick
The blade of the stick must always be below the players' own hips and
the hips of all players in the vicinity who might be endangered.
-----
If there are no objections, I would like to start voting on this.
We still have to find a good solution for a possible exception near the
goal. This is a discussion that we can (and should) continue here.
Comment
agree
Comment
Agreed
Comment
Thanks to Nicolai's comment in a different discussion, I just realized
that we now also need a modification in rule 14B.9.1:
OLD:
"If the opponent’s stick is raised above the height of their hips"
NEW:
"If the opponent’s stick is raised to a high stick (rule 14B.11.2)"
If there is no objection, I'll add this to the proposal.