14C.2.7 Referee Hand Signs
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
This rule presents all hand signs for referees. They do cover some situations but not all.
I think the most often fouls which occur are no covered by referee hand signs (e.g. SUB, obstacle, (hard) body contact). Therefore i thought about some additional hand signs for the most important things.
Use more hand signs would be surely more difficult for the referees but enable better and faster communication between the referees and the players (especially if they don’t talk the same language).
Comment
Yes, we could add a few more signs. Whenever possible, I would like to use signs that are already used in other sports for the same or at least a similar meaning.
Do you already have some suggestions, Nicolai?
Maybe we can use the "Roughing" ice-hockey sign for (hard) body contact?
Comment
I agree
Comment
I agree. Would make it easier to ref. Perhaps look at
Ice Hockey Ref Signals may give some ideas of what we may need
Comment
Indeed I already have some suggestions.
I suggest to introduce the following referee hand sings from the Ice Hockey Ref Signals (Link Steven posted):
- for SUB and SIB (Rules 14.B.9.3 and 14.B.9.4) the Signal Tripping
- for obstacle (Rule 14.B.8.4) the signal Interference
- for slashing (Rule 14B.9.1 in the sense of hitting the opponent or his stick with the players stick) the signal slashing
- for unsporting behavior (e.g. Rule 14B.9.5) the signal Misconduct
- for "taking the right of way" and body contact (Rules 14B. 9.1 and 14B.9.2) the signal boarding or a similar one.
- for too many players on the field (Rule 14B.6) showing six fingers (one hole hand and the thumb of the other hand, referee hand sign does exist in Switzerland but is not on the picture Steven linked).
Here is a link where I gathered the hand signs in a clearly way:
Suggestions for referee hand signs
Comment
Good suggestions
Comment
Any other opinions? Do all of you agree with introducing these referee hand signs?
Comment
Sorry for not responding yet. I was too distracted by the discussions
about the ball and the wheel size. Yes, I have a couple of comments and
I hope to post them within the next couple of days...
Comment
I'd like to share some general thoughts about the hand signs with you.
Why do we have the referee hand signs? They are very useful to explain a
decision without words. This is especially important at international
tournaments where people speak different languages. However, too many
referee signs can also cause confusion. Every time we add a new sign, we
not only have to teach it to the new referees, we also need to be sure
that the average player understands them. There is one more thing to
consider: We should try the new signs also with a whistle in our hands.
For example, our "5 min" sign can only be made with the hand that does
not hold the whistle. My general strategy for new signs would be to add
a few where we really need then and make sure they are easy to
understand. Here are my comments on the new signs that have been
suggested:
> for obstacle (Rule 14.B.8.4) the signal Interference
A sign for "obstacle" is very useful. However, the proposed hand sign
reminds me of the "end of game" sign that is used in volleyball and
maybe other sports as well. Maybe the ice-hockey sign for "obstruction"
would be better? What do you think?
> for unsporting behavior (e.g. Rule 14B.9.5) the signal Misconduct
Very good. I suggest to use this new sign also for exaggerated roughness
(14B.9.1 and 14B.11.3).
> for "taking the right of way" and body contact (Rules 14B. 9.1 and
> 14B.9.2) the signal boarding or a similar one.
This is a very important sign, and it is easy to understand. From the
two variants, I prefer the ice-hockey boarding sign. It nicely
illustrates that one person ("fist") caused the crash and the other
("flat hand") was more passive).
> for slashing (Rule 14B.9.1 in the sense of hitting the opponent or his
> stick with the players stick) the signal slashing
I find it unnecessary and too complicated to distinguish between
"slashing" and "body contact". I'd prefer to use the "boarding sign"
(see above) for both.
> for SUB and SIB (Rules 14.B.9.3 and 14.B.9.4) the Signal Tripping
I find it difficult to find a suitable hand sign for SUB and SIB that is
easily recognized. Maybe the slashing sign is better that the tripping
sign? I'm not sure.
> for too many players on the field (Rule 14B.6) showing six fingers (one
> hole hand and the thumb of the other hand, referee hand sign does exist
> in Switzerland but is not on the picture Steven linked).
Is this really necessary? It is very rare to have six players on the
field. It may happen when a substitute player enters before the other
player left. In contrast to the Swiss referees, the German referees are
not very strict about this rule. Maybe they should be.
Regarding the hand sign itself: I think it looks a bit like a mixture of
"5 min" sign and "face-off" sign. To recognize it as a new sign, maybe
it would be better to show 3 fingers of each hand (3+3 instead of 5+1)?
Comment
I will reply to this soon. Just need some time to get my head around Rolfs reply by looking at all the pictures
Comment
> for obstacle (Rule 14.B.8.4) the signal Interference
A sign for "obstacle" is very useful. However, the proposed hand sign
reminds me of the "end of game" sign that is used in volleyball and
maybe other sports as well. Maybe the ice-hockey sign for "obstruction"
would be better? What do you think?
I have never played volleyball or paid attention to referees so I have not noticed an end of game sign from other sports. The ice hockey sign for obstruction (hands making an O) would be hard to do with a squeezy whistle in your hand however.
for unsporting behavior (e.g. Rule 14B.9.5) the signal Misconduct IVery good. I suggest to use this new sign also for exaggerated roughness
(14B.9.1 and 14B.11.3).
See no issues with this
> for "taking the right of way" and body contact (Rules 14B. 9.1 and
> 14B.9.2) the signal boarding or a similar one.
This is a very important sign, and it is easy to understand. From the
two variants, I prefer the ice-hockey boarding sign. It nicely
illustrates that one person ("fist") caused the crash and the other
("flat hand") was more passive).
I agree
> for slashing (Rule 14B.9.1 in the sense of hitting the opponent or his
> stick with the players stick) the signal slashing I find it unnecessary and too complicated to distinguish between
"slashing" and "body contact". I'd prefer to use the "boarding sign"
(see above) for both.
I dont have an opinion either way on this. Smashing someones stick away looks very different to making body contact. so perhaps there should be a different hand signal?
> for SUB and SIB (Rules 14.B.9.3 and 14.B.9.4) the Signal Tripping
I find it difficult to find a suitable hand sign for SUB and SIB that is
easily recognized. Maybe the slashing sign is better that the tripping
sign? I'm not sure.
Perhaps the spearing signal?
http://assets.ngin.com/attachments/document/0015/1677/penalty_cheat_sheet.jpg
> for too many players on the field (Rule 14B.6) showing six fingers (one
> hole hand and the thumb of the other hand, referee hand sign does exist
> in Switzerland but is not on the picture Steven linked).
Is this really necessary? It is very rare to have six players on the
field. It may happen when a substitute player enters before the other
player left. In contrast to the Swiss referees, the German referees are
not very strict about this rule. Maybe they should be.
Regarding the hand sign itself: I think it looks a bit like a mixture of
"5 min" sign and "face-off" sign. To recognize it as a new sign, maybe
it would be better to show 3 fingers of each hand (3+3 instead of 5+1)?
I believe we do not referee player changes that closely. "under typical ice hockey rules, the substituting player cannot enter the ice until the substituted player is within a short distance of the bench and not actively playing the puck". Though most of the time players get off the field before the other one steps on I am sure that at some point a team must have had an extra player standing on the field as they exchanged. I mean as a referee we are not watching the player changes that closely. As long as they are not involved in play and the players are both next to the sideline as the exchange occurs that is probably about as much attention as it gets.
In that sense we have never had an issue with a team having 6 players on the field taking part in gameplay. Ever.
Comment
We may add only 2 additional signs from ice hockey "boarding" and "Interference".
"Interference" for all "softer" "contacts" (> normally punished with a free shot) and
"boarding" for all "harder" "contacts" and unsporting behaviour or exaggerated roughness (> normally punished with 6.5m, 2min and)
I agree with Rolf: "Too many referee signs can also cause confusion."
Comment
I agree with "too many referee hand signs can cause confusion", but I think for different things we should introduce different signals. Otherwise we can judge with only one signal for all kind of fouls and this makes no sense. The signals should also tell the spectators and the other players on the field what happened. If we have some hand signs for different things it is not clear what was meant. We play hockey therefore I think the referee hand signs should be close to the hand signs of ice hockey or floor ball. If the referees, players and spectators watch sometimes e.g. ice hockey they know the signals and will learn them quickly.
I can agree with the sign "obstruction" for obstacle (Rule 14.B.8.4) but I think the signal "Interference" would be easier to see and also easier to show.
For me unsporting behavior and exaggerated roughness are two totally different things. So i would not take the same signal for both.
I think slashing and body contact are two different things. If you don't want to introduce a separate signal for "slashing" I'd prefer to have none in stead of the "boarding" sign.
I agree that the signal "tripping" is not very easily recognized, but it is the appropriate signal in ice hockey and shows that something come in the way of the player. I did suggest it for those reasons. The signal "spearing" shows good a SIB, but I would prefer if the signal is more appropriate to SUB (this happens more often).
As the signal for too many players on the field finds no friends I suggest to not introduce it.
Comment
> I can agree with the sign "obstruction" for obstacle (Rule 14.B.8.4)
> but I think the signal "Interference" would be easier to see and also
> easier to show.
My first thought was that the "interference" sign could be confused with
the "end of game" sign. However, apparently volleyball
is the only game that uses the sign for that purpose, so there is no big
problem.
Also, I agree with Steven that a whistle in the hand could be a problem
for the "obstruction" sign.
I'm happy now with the "interference" sign for obstacle (14B.8.4).
> For me unsporting behavior and exaggerated roughness are two totally
> different things. So i would not take the same signal for both.
For me unsporting behavior and exaggerated roughness are very similar. I
don't think these fouls were done inadvertently. In both cases I, as the
referee, want to tell the player: "Be careful what you are doing, this
is not okay!" A common hand sign conveys this message.
> I think slashing and body contact are two different things. If you
> don't want to introduce a separate signal for "slashing" I'd prefer to
> have none in stead of the "boarding" sign.
I think, first I need to understand the difference. In rule 14B.9.1, we
have these two sentences:
1) The opponents and their unicycles may not be touched.
2) The players must take care not to hit an opponent with their stick,
especially after a shot.
Do I understand correctly that you refer to the first as "body contact"
and the second as "slashing"?
> I agree that the signal "tripping" is not very easily recognized, but
> it is the appropriate signal in ice hockey and shows that something
> come in the way of the player.
I looked at the picture for the tripping sign but found it difficult to
understand. Then I found a nice youtube video (which starts with a funny
"hand sign dance"):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FdQiJxHEfo
Here you can see the tripping sign at 3:13 min. Basically, the referee
makes a karate hit with her hand onto her own shinbone. Note that in
contrast to the description of the picture ("keep both skates on the
ice"), the referee in the video lifts her leg to make the tripping sign.
The tripping sign in the video looks indeed a little bit like a SUB and
would be okay for me.
> The signal "spearing" shows good a SIB, but I would prefer if the
> signal is more appropriate to SUB (this happens more often).
I agree that "spearing" is good for SIB but not for SUB.
Comment
I agree that for unsporting behavior and exaggerated roughness the message to the player is the same but the reason is different.
Rule 14B.9.1 says that "If the opponent’s stick is raised above the height of their hips, it is always considered exaggerated roughness." I think this can also occur if the player who is raising the opponent's stick overestimates the force with which the opponent holds his stick.
Yes, you understand this more or less in my way. Rules 14B.9.1 ("The game is non-contact: the opponents and their unicycles may not be touched") and 14B.9.2 (..."The following rules apply when riders come into contact with each other") are for me "body contact". I would apply the signal "slashing" if a player hits the opponent or its stick with his stick and apply the signal "body contact" if two players come into contact with their bodies (e.g. shoulder).
Comment
> I agree that for unsporting behavior and exaggerated roughness the
> message to the player is the same but the reason is different.
Yes, the reasons are different. However, I do not think this difference
is big enough to justify a separate hand sign. For me it is more
important that the player understands the message.
> I think this can also occur if the player who is raising the
> opponent's stick overestimates the force with which the opponent holds
> his stick.
True. This is indeed a difficult decision. It is even possible that the
opponent held the stick very loosely in his hands on purpose because he
wanted this to happen. Anyway, this would be a separate discussion
beyond the question of the hand sign.
> Yes, you understand this more or less in my way. Rules 14B.9.1 ("The
> game is non-contact: the opponents and their unicycles may not be
> touched") and 14B.9.2 (..."The following rules apply when riders come
> into contact with each other") are for me "body contact". I would
> apply the signal "slashing" if a player hits the opponent or its stick
> with his stick and apply the signal "body contact" if two players come
> into contact with their bodies (e.g. shoulder).
Thanks for the explanation! I now understand how you distinguish between
"body contact" and "slashing", at least in theory. In praxis, I think
that most fouls involve both. Once the violation of the rules has
started, both unicycles, both players and both sticks end up in a big
pile. To limit the number of new hand signs, I still think the boarding
sign is suitable for both.
Here is a summary of the proposed hand signs:
1) For SUB and SIB (Rules 14.B.9.3 and 14.B.9.4) the Signal Tripping
I agree, if the sign looks like a "karate hit with the hand onto the
shinbone", as it is shown in the youtube video I have mentioned.
2) For obstacle (Rule 14.B.8.4) the signal Interference
I think we all agree now.
3) For "taking the right of way" and body contact (Rules 14B. 9.1 and
14B.9.2) the signal boarding
I think we all agree here.
4) For slashing (Rule 14B.9.1 in the sense of hitting the opponent or
his stick with the players stick) the signal slashing
I prefer to use the same hand sign as for body contact. What do the
others think?
5) For unsporting behavior (e.g. Rule 14B.9.5) the signal Misconduct
I think we all agree here.
6) For exaggerated roughness, the same hand sign as for unsporting behavior.
Nicolai and I have different opinions. What do the others think?
7) For too many players on the field showing six fingers.
I would be in favor of the "3 fingers + 3 fingers" hand sign.
However, to limit the number of hand signs, it would also be okay for
me if we don't add this new sign.
Comment
Good summary!
I wouldn't add the hand sign for too many players on the field (would not be used very often).
Comment
7) I tried a kind of reflex: Holding the whistle in one hand I use with this hand the thumb and with the other hand 5 fingers. Try yourself. For "3 fingers + 3 fingers" I have to think about how I can manage the whistle.
Comment
it's fine for me to remove the "6 players" hand sign.
Comment
I wouldnt add the too many players on the field as its so infrequent that verbally telling a team is probably enough (even with possible language barriers)
Comment
Okay, so I think we have to discuss about 4) and 6).
4) I would introduce the signal "slashing" for slashing (Rule 14B.9.1 in the sense of hitting the opponent or his stick with the players stick)
6) I would introduce no signal for exaggerated roughness (or an other one than for unsporting behavior).
Rolf and I stated our opinions, what about the others?
Comment
4. Slashing signal is more appropriate for "14B.9.1 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 than the signal for body contact. I have no issue with this being introduced as these sorts of fouls occur reasonably often in our league. They are different from body contact in my mind.
6. I think "exaggerated roughness" occurs more frequently than "unsportsmanlike behaviour" in my mind it makes sense to have a signal for this before we have a signal for unsportsmanlike behaviour. So I believe it is more important to give a signal to exaggerated roughness.
For 6 I believe we should either
A. Use the signal for exaggerated roughness and no signal for unsportsmanlike behaviour
B. Use the signal for both
C. Use a different signal for both of these rules
Comment
1) 2) 3) 5) agree
4) I would use signal slashing as well for 14B.9.1. This sort of fouls occur often.
6) I would not use the same signal for both exaggerated roughness and unsporting behavior.
Unsportsmanlike behavior can include various things, therefore it is anyway necessary that the referee precise it. So in my eyes it is therefore more important to have a sign for exaggerated roughness.
--> I see the following possibilities:
a) no sign for both
b) 1 sign for exaggerated roughness an no sign for unsporting behavior
c) 1 sign for exaggerated roughness and 1 sign for unsporting behavior
I personally prefer to introduce (for the moment) no sign for both (a) in order to ask not to much from the referees.
7) I would also remove the hand sign for 6 players
Comment
Here is a suggestion for the proposal text, based on similar text from
the ice hockey rules. I have included only the points we have already
agreed upon:
PROPOSAL START
Add 4 new Referee Hand Signs to section 14C.2.7:
- "SUB and SIB"
Hit your shinbone with the edge of your hand.
- "Obstacle"
Cross arms in front of the chest, fists clenched.
- "Taking the right of way" and "Body contact"
Strike the clenched fist of one hand into the open palm of the other
hand directly in front of the chest.
- "Unsporting behavior"
Point to player first, then place hands on hips.
PROPOSAL END
Maybe the best idea for the remaining points is to test them at home
during the next 2 years and then continue our discussion in the IUF
Rulebook Committee 2018.
Comment
In the last list, I miss the slashing sign. I think it will be one of the most used signs. And the sign is very easy and can be easily linked with "Stockschlag" (slashing). I see no reason to not introduce this sign.
With the other points I agree.
Comment
The slashing sign is missing because I have included only the signs we
have already agreed upon. We currently have 15 active discussions and
only about two weeks left to turn them into proposals. Therefore, my
main aim is to make sure that we get everything we agree upon into the
next rulebook. I don't want to rush things where we have different
opinions. There are many great ideas for new rules (for example Steven's
new discussion about declarations) which still need time for a careful
evaluation until they are ready. Maybe we can continue our discussions
even after the deadline, not for the 2016 rulebook but in preparation of
the 2018 rulebook. I have to ask Scott about this.
Regarding the slashing sign, I see several problems with it. In my
experience, illegal contact is in most cases a mixture of body contact
and stick contact: Player touches player, stick touches player, player
touches stick, stick touches stick, and in the end, all involved players
dismount. I do not see an advantage in having different signs for body
contact and stick contact.
In addition, there are several cases where it would be necessary for the
referee to show 2 signs because the new slashing sign is redundant:
1) hitting an opponent with your stick under their wheel or into their
wheel -> "SUB or SIB" in addition to "slashing"
2) hitting an opponent with your stick above the hips -> "high stick" in
addition to "slashing"
3) hitting an opponent’s stick creating a high stick of the opponent ->
"exaggerated roughness" in addition to "slashing"
Comment
I support putting these through to proposal and work on the slashing sign later if it means getting it through. We have a million things to vote on
Comment
I agree with Rolfs suggestions
Comment
I play and referee only on the last 4 UNICONs but I did not miss a official hockey hand sigh. "Too many referee signs can cause confusion." - particularly in the B-tournament there are a lot of people trying to play unicycle hockey as beginners.
Up to 2 new hand signs - fine. Which are most important? All hand signs should be self-explaining, I am in doubt with the suggestions so far. If it comes to proposal I would not block but I would vote for "Abstain".
Comment
If people want to limit the number of additions I would suggest removing unsportsmanlike conduct as usually that will come with some other foul. (high stick, repeated sibs etc)
Otherwise I am happy to bring in the 4 new referee signals and work on slashing if we have time
Comment
@Rolf: In Switzerland we have situations in which only slashing occurs and not further things like body contact.
I agree with your first situation, but I think in such cases the referee would show the sign he thinks is more important. In the two other situations ( 2) & 3) ) one of those fouls would occur first, so the referee would only penalize one of these fouls and therefore show only one signal.
@Herbert: For me the additional hand signs are not for the referees but for the players and the spectators. The referees know what they rule but for the players (and spectators) it would be nice if they know why the referee did interrupt the game without asking the referee. (Maybe the player thought he did no foul, so for him it would be good to know, what the referee did see and penalized.)
If we really want to limit the number of additional referee signals, I would only introduce the following:
- SUB and SIB: Hit your shinbone with the edge of your hand.
- Obstacle: Cross arms in front of the chest, fists clenched.
- Taking the right of way and Body contact: Strike the clenched fist of one hand into the open palm of the other hand directly in front of the chest.
Comment
I agree with Herbert that there should not be too many new signs but I think
4 is okay. If we really want to reduce the number, I agree with Steven
and Nicolai that the most important are:
1) SUB and SIB
2) Obstacle
3) Taking the right of way and Body contact
Comment
Okay, I would suggest to bring this three hand signs to a proposal.
Comment
Nicolai, this is a proposal that you have started. Do you want to make a
proposal out of it, or should I do that?
There is also another task: For copyright reasons, we probably cannot
use the ice-hockey pictograms directly. We need to create our own, and
they should be in the same style as the current pictograms. Any
volunteers to create them? Anyway, this issue should not stop us from
creating the proposal.
Comment
I'm not sure how to bring those referee hand sings to proposal. Therefore I would be happy if you could do that.
Comment
Cross arms in front of the chest.
- "Taking the right of way" and "Body contact"
I think in this instance "taking the right of way doesn't make sense. I am guessing that for this rule we are using the signal for penalities for body contacting other players or " Dangerously forcing a player to give way" (as is against rule) 14B.9.2
If so we should change the wording as currently I am unsure what it is referring to
Comment
> Cross arms in front of the chest.
> "Taking the right of way" and "Body contact"
I hope there was no misunderstanding:
The proposed hand sign for "Taking the right of way" and "Body contact" is
"Strike the clenched fist of one hand into the open palm of the other
hand directly in front of the chest."
not
"Cross arms in front of the chest."
> I think in this instance "taking the right of way doesn't make sense.
> I am guessing that for this rule we are using the signal for
> penalities for body contacting other players or " Dangerously forcing
> a player to give way" (as is against rule) 14B.9.2 If so we should
> change the wording as currently I am unsure what it is referring to
There is probably always body contact after taking the right of way.
Maybe the correct name for the sign would be:
"Body contact caused by taking the right of way"
If you prefer, we could simply call the sign:
"Body contact"
Comment
Sorry Rolf that was a wrong sentence by me. I should have typed "
"Strike the clenched fist of one hand into the open palm of the other hand directly in front of the chest".
But the rest of my statement still stands. I am unsure what "taking the right of way" means. Body contact makes sense. as I mentioned above dangerously forcing someone to give way is also a penalty even if you don't have body contact so perhaps that is what you mean in "taking the right of way"
Comment
> I am unsure what "taking the right of way" means.
To me it means all violations of the rule "14B.9.2 Right Of Way".
Is the proposal okay for you if we call the sign "Body contact" and
avoid the term "right of way" here?
Comment
For me its okay, if we only say "body contact".
Comment
For me only "body contact".
Comment
OK, I will change the name to "body contact".
Also, I've almost finished creating the pictures for the new signs. They have a better resolution than the current pictures, so I also recreated the old pictures in high-resolution. I will upload them soon.
Comment
Rolf, please me send me an email with the new files as well.
Comment
Yes, I'll send you an email with the new pictograms.
And now for something completely different:
Scott, did you read our ideas about informally continuing the discussion
in the hockey sub-committee?
http://iuf-rulebook-2016.committees.unicycling-software.com/discussions/111
Can we continue to use the current software system for this? Of course
everything would be unofficial after the rulebook committee 2016 has
been closed. Still, it would be a good platform for us to develop
further ideas which we may introduce in the next rulebook committee.
Comment
Here are the new high-resolution pictograms for the referee hand signs:
http://www.rolf-sander.net/tmp/hockey_pictograms.zip
This includes the old signs as well as the 3 new signs.
Let me know if you have any comments/suggestions. If not, I will add
them to the proposal here.
Comment
Looks great Rolf! Thanks for drawing those.