Referee is touched by the ball
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
What happens when the referee is touched by the ball? We had some heated discussions about this question at the Unicon this year. There is nothing about this in the rulebook. The possibilities are:
A) Nothing happens, game continues.
B) The game is stopped. It is continued with a face-off.
C) The referee chooses between A and B, depending on how much the speed and the direction of the ball were changed after touching the referee.
I think we need a rule for this.
Comment
I remember this discussion on UNICON. I my opinion it took anyway to long. A referee is neutral, an impartial arbitrator!
Therefore nothing happens and the games continues.
Occasionally shit happens, bad luck.
No need for a hockey rule.
Maybe the role of a referee, secretary, timer and director should be brought forward to some under "Hierarchy of Officials" (1A.7)
Comment
Stop the game and do a bully.
The issue at unicon was that the attacking team tried to pass a player at speed by bouncing the ball off the wall around the palyer. It hit the refereeand stopped on the spot right in front of the opposition who took it and scored. The original attacking team could not turn quick enough to defend with the speed they were traveling forward (as they were attaacking).
That is a massive turn around purely because it hit the referee and fell perfectly for the defending team. I do not believe that sort of goal should come under "shit happens"
The attacking team still gets screwed if you do a bully as they were in possession of the ball before it hit the referee, but it is a more fair method for them than having the opposition taking advantage and scoring against them.
Comment
I agree with Steven but could the rule state that if it's to an advantage to the team that hit the referee that play continues? I'm just thinking if the attacking team hits the ball and it bounces off the referee but keeps going and gets to the open player who is wide open and shoots and scores...would be shame to blow the whistle and make it come back for a bully.
Comment
I agree with Herbert. There is no rule needed. All players can decide where to play the ball. If they play the ball in direction of the referee, they know that it could be unintentionally stopped by the referee. Bad luck.
However, I would invest more to create a rule that a referee is not allowed to lead a game while wearing sandals or flip flops. First it makes the sport ridiculous and dubios (!) and second the referees are not ready to avoid touching the ball....
Comment
I think there should be a bully. Because:
a) it is an interruption of play, no matter if the inconvenience is for or against the team in possession
b) a bully is the fairest decision, as it can be very hard for referees to decide which team would be 'worthy' of having the ball
Comment
I looked up this situation in different other sports and found different rules. In many situation the referee is regarded part of the game and therefore the game is not interrupted.
In my opinion the most important thing is that we create a rule which is clear for all situations.
I would prefer if game continues after the referee is touched by the ball. Resuming the game with a faceoff (not bully ;-) after every contact does not work according to me.
An other possibility would be that the decision of the referee should be different depending on the situation. If the referee is only touched slightly by the ball game should continue. In other situation e.g. the ball enters the goal after touching the referee play should be interrupted and a faceoff is given.
I suggest the following:
If a referee is hit by the ball and realizes that he has strongly influenced the game he can interrupt the game and resume the game with a faceoff.
Comment
If we really want to introduce a rule for 'referee touches the ball', then I suggest to follow Nicolai's idea. But please consider, that this might lead to many discussions during the game...
According to me, the simplest and clearest rule would be suggestion A from Rolf (first entry).
And one more thing: A good referee is permanently reading the game and should be hardly ever an obstacle.
Comment
I believe that a face off will result in the least problems for referees but believe something along the lines of
"If the referee believes his contact with the ball has changed the course of play to benefit either team he should interrupt the game and resume the game with a faceoff"
result with the least official complaints.
That means if the ball was passed by a team, has a glancing blow on the referee, then continues the original direction it does not change the course of play to benefit the team who passed it the same outcome occurs.
If it was passed to a player, hits the referee and stops dead for the opposition team to take the ball then it has changed the course of play to benefit the opposite team and should be stopped for a faceoff.
Comment
This suggestion could work.
Comment
Also I realised it should say
"If the referee believes their contact with the ball has changed the course of play to benefit either team they should interrupt the game and resume the game with a faceoff"
To keep it gender neutral ;)
Comment
All suggestions are made leading to the start of new discussions on the field. I mentioned this 10 days ago we should say the referee is always neutral and therefore all action and changes of the course of the ball by the referee are neutral. If a referee kicks a ball obviously intentionally in a curtain direction this should became a matter of a protest! (Here an other sample for the protest discussion)
Comment
Every time a referee is touched it will lead to discussions on the field. Even if the rule is that we play on no matter what the discussion will be that the rules are bad as it directly influenced a goal.
No matter what the rule is it will lead to discussions. However the rule I proposed has a greater ability to NOT influence the game for either team.
Comment
Here is a suggestion for the new text, which we could maybe add at the
end of section 14C.2.6:
The game is normally not interrupted if a referee is hit by the ball.
However, if this contact has strongly influenced the game, the referee can
interrupt the game and then continue it with a face-off.
Comment
If the boards is made of benches and/or gymnastic stools it happens often that a ball hits a spacing or edge between them, than the ball comes back in a strange ankle. Nobody thinks in this situation about a face-off. (again: shit happens, "One man's trash is another man's treasure"). The benches are neutral! For me is this the same with a neutral referees leg (or an other part of his body). No player has been forced to play in the direction of the referee and if he does so there is no matter to raise a complain if the ball comes back in a strange angle and may give an advantage to the opposing team.
Therefore: A) Nothing happens, game continues.
Comment
Good point Herbert. Guess I'm still in the middle on this. In a way you kind of always have to treat the referee as an opponent as you always have to ride around him or her and avoid hitting the ball directly at them. For the person that does, it is kind of their fault for doing it. Hmmmmm
Comment
The problem is that the benches are stools do not move, they can always be expected to be in the same spot. Referees are expected to be close to the ball, it says in the rulebook, they roam up and down the field meaning they are a moving obstacle (unlike boards).
A referee can be expected to get out of the way but can either be slow, clumsy and not move quick enough. OR the referee can sometimes misjudge where the ball was going to go ENTIRELY and jump INTO the path of the ball instead.
If a player does a no look pass to a teammate and the referee had moved since the player was last able to look it can hit the referee. It is not always as simple as "tough luck you shouldn't have passed there". When he was able to look the referee may not have been in the way.
Comment
What is the end of this discussion?
A) Nothing happens, game continues. > no new rule?
Comment
I still think due to our referees not being the quality (not paid either) of professional or large sports we do not have the same caliber of referees meaning they can get int he way more often.
I still believe
"If the referee believes their contact with the ball has changed the course of play to benefit either team they should interrupt the game and resume the game with a faceoff"
is the best ruling with the last headache.
Comment
I think also that Stevens suggestion or a similar one is the best ruling. It leaves the most possibilities to the referee.
I would also create a new rule if we say nothing happens in order to be clear and prevent many discussions.
Comment
one month ago I maid following comment: "... No need for a hockey rule. Maybe the role of a referee, secretary, timer and director should be brought forward to some under "Hierarchy of Officials" (1A.7)..."
and I stick to my opinion ..."we should say the referee is always neutral and therefore all action and changes of the course of the ball by the referee are neutral..."
My problem is I am not allowed to open a discussion for (1A.7, Hierarchy of Officials) or add something to "1D.1 Definitions".
The last sentence in 1A.7 is "All officials are expected to work objectively and impartially." The Question is the Board of Referees are "Officials". I think > "Yes". The heading of the Board of Referees is "14D.2 Officials".
An impartially referee is from my point of few neutral and therefore all action is neutral.
(Again: If a referee kicks a ball obviously intentionally in a curtain direction this should became a matter of a protest!)
@ Steven: In the German league there are no professional referees and no doubt a quality problem of referees exist as well. Normally a referee tries to give way or jumps over the ball but not in all situation will this work; the referee is doing his best. I assume the same in Australia. You mentioned a strong believer as referee.
Only in following situations I would stop the game. 1.A referee is knocked out (or certain injured) by a ball or 2. A player crashes into a referee and the referee is unable to judge the game. Only a change of the course of a ball for whosoever benefit I don`t care.
Comment
Herbert: You say that the referee is always neutral. Do you think this
should also be the case when the referee is (unintentionally) hit by the
ball, the ball changes direction and goes directly into the goal? I
don't think this would be correct. I think it is a good idea that the
referee can make a faceoff in the (maybe few?) cases when it is
necessary.
Taking Steven's suggestion and adding that in the "normal" case nothing
happens, I would now like to propose the following text:
"The game is normally not interrupted if a referee is hit by the ball.
However, if the referee believes their contact with the ball has changed
the course of play to benefit either team they should interrupt the game
and resume the game with a faceoff."
Comment
Sorry no support because this would be against my overriding principles what a referee should be.
Comment
It's a pity that we cannot find a solution that everyone can accept.
Herbert, you say that there should be no interruption at all when the
referee is unintentionally hit by the ball. Do you think a goal should
be valid if the ball goes directly into the goal after touching the
referee?
Comment
Wording 1
If the referee believes their contact with the ball has changed the course of play to benefit either team they should interrupt the game and resume the game with a faceoff"
Wording 2
"The game is normally not interrupted if a referee is hit by the ball. However, if the referee believes their contact with the ball has changed the course of play to benefit either team they should interrupt the game and resume the game with a faceoff."
I believe the addition of "The game is normally not interrupted if a referee is hit by the ball" is redundant Rolf.
Both wordings state that if a referee believes their contact has changed the course of play to benefit either team to stop the game, this implies that if they do not believe it has changed the course of play to not interrupt the game. I think the words "the game is not normally interrupted" is implied as long as the rule is followed. I think both
A full rule would probably say something along the lines of
Rule XX.X
Referee Contact with Ball
If during play the referee believes their contact with the ball has changed the course of play to benefit either team they should interrupt the game and resume the game with a faceoff"
Comment
I agree, there is some redundancy in my wording. Still, I'd like to have
the phrase "referee is hit by the ball" somewhere in the rule. If we
only talk about "referee ... contact with the ball" then it may not be
clear what situation we refer to. Here is another suggestion:
"If a referee is hit by the ball, the game is only interrupted if this
contact has changed the course of play to benefit either team. In this
case, the game is resumed with a faceoff."
Comment
"changed the course of play" > all kinds of contact will change the course of play - more or less- and certainly this will benefit a team - more or less -
Maybe it was only a wrong calculated rebound from the body of the referee. Again "Shit happens!"
A matter of new discussions!
"game is resumed with a face-off" Now you force the referee to stop the game and resume!
I summarize: "If the referee is hit by the ball the game is to stop and resumes with a face-off." > A face-off in this case will penalizing one of the teams!!!
Please find an other game for example where this kind of rule is in use.
Some other situations:
1. The borders are only knee high. The referee is hit by the ball on his chest nest to the border and rebound into the field. > "face-off"?
2. Free shot from the corner mark. Only the referee was hit by the ball and the ball wobbles into the goal, nobody else touches the ball. > "face-off"?
The referee has to be "air", sometimes it happens that there are huge molecules of air which rebound a ball in a strange matter.
If your suggestion becomes a rule there is no need for a referee to try to give way for the players or the ball. "What's that to me?" > "If I had been hit, I will give a face-off" > No need to give my best as a referee!
@ Rolf: "Herbert, you say that there should be no interruption at all when the referee is unintentionally hit by the ball. Do you think a goal should be valid if the ball goes directly into the goal after touching the referee?" In this case "Yes"!
I will give you my answer to my both other situations.
1. The referee`s chest is higher than the normal border of this playing field. The ball would be out. Free shot from the side line.
2. No goal! Game resumes with Goalies ball. The referee has to be "air", only "air" touches the ball, but a corner free shot has to be indirect and this hasn't happen. ( A short thought: "The free shot is executed from the point where the violation was done." > Scrapped > A referee can not make a violation, the violation was that the ball rolled officially direct into the goal.
Comment
> Please find an other game for example where this kind of rule is in use.
It seems that rugby has something similar:
http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=6.A.10
Comment
In response to your situations Herbert.
1. Borders knee high referee gets hit in the chest yes I would rule faceoff
2. Free shot from the corner mark. Only the referee was hit by the ball and the ball wobbles into the goal, nobody else touches the ball. I think a faceoff is fair. The referee should not be in a situation to get hit from a corner, it is 100% his fault in this situation. Previously you have said "the team did not have to hit it towards the referee" A corner is an attacking advantage where scoring is the goal so of course the team need to shoot/pass to somewhere that they can score from. If a referee is getting hit in this situation I believe it is 100% their fault not the team for shooting or passing near them.
In response to
If your suggestion becomes a rule there is no need for a referee to try to give way for the players or the ball. "What's that to me?" > "If I had been hit, I will give a face-off" > No need to give my best as a referee!
This is no different from your current opinion on this rule. If we play on when it hits the referee how does this give the referee any more incentive to give way for the players or ball?
Using your own words but slightly modified.
"What's that to me?" > "If I had been hit, It is play on" > No need to give my best as a referee!
Comment
Rugby Union Rule
(a)
(b)
If either team gains an advantage in in-goal, if the ball is in possession of an attacking player the referee awards a try where the contact took place.
(c)
If either team gains an advantage in in-goal, if the ball is in possession of a defending player, the referee awards a touch down where the contact took place.
This rugby Union rule is almost exactly what we proposed.
Comment
A "throw-in", a "try" and a "touch down" are all kinds of a small advantage, this sounds to me not knowing rugby. All three similar situations in unicycle hockey should end with a face-off? Strange to me!
Comment
When I mean exactly what we proposed I more so mean that we proposed that if ball touches ref and no team gains advantage play on if a team gains advantage then the play is stopped.
Ignore the try and touch down section. Sorry for the confusion.
I still think
Rule XX.X
Referee Contact with Ball
If during play the referee believes their contact with the ball has changed the course of play to benefit either team they should interrupt the game and resume the game with a faceoff"
is the best option and the fact that other sports use something similar further solidifies my position. In our league we often have given a face off after it touches the referee. Though because it is not in the rule book it is currently ruled inconsistently. (Some people give a face off, some do nothing, some give a faceoff only if the ball touching them made a big change to the ball trajectory)
Comment
To come to an end in this discussion I think we should first clarify if a rule is needed (A or B/C) and then what the rule should be (A/B or C). Its a pity that we have so different opinions, but I think we should try to find a majority for either one of the opinions.
I see the following possibilities:
A) no rule, game continues in all situations after the referee has touched the ball
B) explicit rule: We make a rule which clearly say what happens if the referee is touched by the ball.
e.g. Rule xx.x: Referee Contact with Ball
If a referee is hit by the ball game continues in every situation
C) Rule xx.x: Referee Contact with Ball
If a referee is hit by the ball, the game is only interrupted if the referee believes their contact with the ball has changed the course of play to benefit either team they should interrupt the game and resume the game with a faceoff.
Comment
With instinctive certainty I vote for A). (It´s my principal: It´s my family tradition, a part of my former profession and every so often I operate as a judge at court for years.)
Sorry, therefore and in this case you have to find a majority against me.
Comment
I'm voting a C.
Comment
I am voting C.
Though not a "one decision for every situation" many sports have a "referee decides if a rule should be ruled" At least in rugby league and rugby union I know they do. I think with good working it should make it very possible for a referee to make a good decision.
Comment
I'm in favor of C:
"If a referee is hit by the ball, the game is only interrupted if this
contact has changed the course of play to benefit either team. In this
case, the game is resumed with a faceoff."
Comment
I think we have a clear majority in favor of option C:
"If a referee is hit by the ball, the game is only interrupted if this
contact has changed the course of play to benefit either team. In this
case, the game is resumed with a faceoff."
I would like to turn this into a proposal soon.
Herbert: I know you disagree but I have to admit that I still don't
understand why. Maybe this is because of some misunderstanding resulting
from the translations English <-> German? If you want, you can post some
German text here, and I will try to translate it into English for the
non-German speakers.
Comment
Can this go to proposal?
Comment
A referee has to be nonpartisan (neutral) and all action from such a person is nonpartisan (neutral). This is for me an unbreakable principle! And I will fight for this as long as I can. There is no reasonable compromise.
Go to proposal, in this case I will disagree. Find a majority.
Comment
I'm voting C.
Comment
Herbert, since you have agreed to start voting, I will now create a proposal.
Comment
Proposed Text
If a referee is hit by the ball, the game is only interrupted if the
contact has changed the course of play to benefit either team. In this
case, the game is resumed with a face-off.
I would change "This" to "the"
Comment
I repeat partially from 3 weeks ago:
"changed the course of play" > all kinds of contact will change the course of play - more or less- and certainly this will benefit a team - more or less -
Maybe it was only a wrong calculated rebound from the body of the referee. This will be a matter of new discussions!
If you require a rule if the referee was hit, use a simple rule with no possible discussion:
If a referee is hit >touched< by the ball, the game is interrupted and the game is resumed with a face-off.
This would be a clear rule without doubt for all situations when a referee was hit by the ball! No advantage rule!