Penalty SHOTS

Tuck · #41 (**permalink**) IP: 144.195.6.10 01-12-07, 04:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jols

There is never going to be a rule here that makes everyone happy. Clever players will always look to take advantage of every loophole they think they see in the rules, whether that is leaving their legs hanging to block a shot in one case, or purposely throwing at the defenders legs in the other.

I agree for the most part, I think the rules can be improved upon and guidelines set to minimize the loophole abuse. Having the ability to stretch the bounds of a rule to gain an advantage in a sport can be just as much a skill as any other part of the game, and in some instances move the sport forward. Though blatant sloppy abuse should still be punished, I’m thinking where the rules are fuzzy and don’t make a lot of sense, and I think in this thread we have a case of that.
Back to the Soccer analogy, I think soccer’s rules have been pretty well sorted out and are clearly and concisely written and revised oh so how many years. Below, copied the wording from the FIFA rules on first, what fouls result in a direct free kick. Then Way down about 100 pages later they clarify with examples and sometimes pictures and points for the referee to consider HOW to make a call, not just some vague idea of the foul.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FIFA LAWS OF THE GAME [B

Direct Free Kick[/b]
A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits
any of the following six offences in a manner considered by the referee
to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
• kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
• trips or attempts to trip an opponent
• jumps at an opponent
• charges an opponent
• strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
• pushes an opponent
A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player
commits any of the following four offences:
• tackles an opponent to gain possession of the ball, making contact
with the opponent before touching the ball
• holds an opponent
• spits at an opponent
• handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his
own penalty area)
A direct free kick is taken from where the offence occurred.

Clarification of what makes an illegal hand ball. I think wording like this could be fit into UWH rules quite easily. “The referee shall take the following into consideration:”

Quote:

Originally Posted by FIFA LAWS OF THE GAME

Handling the ball
Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact
with the ball with his hand or arm. The referee shall take the following
into consideration:
• The movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards
the hand)
• The distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected
ball)
• Position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an
infringement
• Touching the ball with an object held in the hand (clothing, shinguard
etc.) counts as an infringement
• Hitting the ball with a thrown object (a boot, shinguard etc.)
counts as an infringement
Disciplinary sanctions
There are circumstances when a caution for unsporting behaviour
is required when a player deliberately handles the ball, e.g. when a
player:
• deliberately and blatantly handles the ball to prevent an opponent
gaining possession
• attempts to score a goal by deliberately handling the ball
A player is sent off, however, if he prevents a goal or an obvious goalscoring
opportunity by deliberately handling the ball. This punishment
arises not from the act of the player deliberately handling the ball but
from the unacceptable and unfair intervention that prevented a goal
being scored.

And just because here is the wording on Soccer’s version of Obstruction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FIFA LAWS OF THE GAME

Impeding the progress of an opponent
Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the path
of the opponent to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of
direction by an opponent when the ball is not within playing distance
of either player.
All players have a right to their position on the fi eld of play, being in
the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an
opponent.
Shielding the ball is permitted. A player who places himself between
an opponent and the ball for tactical reasons has not committed an
offence as long as the ball is kept in playing distance and the player
does not hold off the opponent with his arms or body. If the ball
is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an
opponent.

This still requires that some clarification take place at the refs meeting before the comp as Liam is saying, but just some clarification and better wording might also help.

Duck · #42 (**permalink**) IP: 66.121.19.142 01-12-07, 04:29 AM

It would be great to have that sort of specific wording in our rules. It would ceretainly clear up a lot of issues. The line I like most is the consideration of the movement of the hand to the ball not the ball to the hand. Too many times refs call a foul when the defender was not playing the puck with their ... (insert body part here) ... but rather the puck was shot into the... (insert same body part here)...

Who's up for rewriting the rules into a 12-volume work-of-art, complete with casebook as Carol has been talking about for years.

Oh, but before we go there be sure to get your changes to the current rules in before the deadline.

Jols · #43 (**permalink**) IP: 83.84.250.232 01-12-07, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuck

Great Idea!! Duck actually asked for this to get started brom various folks in the US several months ago. There was a lot of energy early and I'm not sure what if anything has happened. I think collecting and putting together good and bad video clips might be a start. There is the French site with loads of small clips some of which have examples of fouls. I'm too lazy to look for the link right now.

You mean Tom's page? Le site de référence du Hockey Subaquatique

He does indeed have some examples, although unfortunately the pages are only in French. Exactly this sort of example, but with explanation and possible sanctions for the players for different fouls.

Good that you have already started doing this in the US, I do think that in order to get international consistency it should be the world chief ref who is making the calls as to what the foul is and the appropriate sanction though.

Who is the world chief ref now that Murray has retired? In the tournaments that I have seen him working I have found Pizaz to be the ref who thinks the most about what the consequences are of a foul and relating that to the flow of the game also... making a better game to play and watch. I hope it is him...

Duck · #44 (**permalink**) IP: 66.121.19.142 04-12-07, 03:09 AM

Jols, just for you I will ask Pizzaz to help out at my Party in Durban. But seriously, he is the new Chief Ref.

Carol Rose · #45 (**permalink**) IP: 207.200.116.5 04-12-07, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jols

I like the idea of guidelines for the refs to be able to interpret the game more consistently across geo's. Some enterprising ref should start a website with video examples (a picture is worth a thousand words) and the interpretation of the play from the world chief ref.

If they need material I can find any number of examples of misinterpretation from my video collection.

All major sports have one as companion to the rules.

Jols · #46 (**permalink**) IP: 83.84.250.232 04-12-07, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carol Rose

All major sports have one as companion to the rules.

And, therefore to fool everyone into thinking we are a major sport we should have one too. I like your thinking Carol.

Don't like the term 'casebook' though. Sounds like lawyer talk, and noone likes lawyers (sorry Romain). How about 'Consistent Rules Application Proclamation'?

Jols · #47 (**permalink**) IP: 83.84.250.232 04-12-07, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duck

Jols, just for you I will ask Pizzaz to help out at my Party in Durban. But seriously, he is the new Chief Ref.

Good news... maybe someone with his e-mail address should nudge him in the right direction...

Duck · #48 (**permalink**) IP: 66.121.19.142 05-12-07, 03:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jols

Don't like the term 'casebook' though. Sounds like lawyer talk, and noone likes lawyers (sorry Romain). How about 'Consistent Rules Application Proclamation'?

Sounds like it comes from a King so I'd be pretty damn sure the US won't go for it. How about something as simple as the title of a book I read as a kid "See Dick Run" only for us it would be See Dick Swim.

Page One: Picture of Dick with his gear on and caption reading 'See Dick swim.'
Page Two: Picture of Dick with motion effects and caption reading 'Dick can swim fast'
Page Three: Picture of Dick using his freehand to fend off a defender and caption reading 'See Dick foul'.
Page Four: Picture of Ref signalling and caption reading 'See Dick go to the sin bin'.
Page Five: Picture of Jane... 'See Jane Swim'
Page Six: Picture of Jane swimming without fending off with freehand (because we all know the women play a cleaner game) 'See Jane move up pool'.

Etc...

View Poll Results: What would be ok in a penalty shot if you knock it down?
It is never ok, it should always be a penalty goal because of illegal knock down.	4	22.22%
It is ok if you do not move and they shoot the puck into you.	12	66.67%
It is ok to knock down the puck with your body because it's the shooters fault they have a bad shot.	2	11.11%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 18. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Penalty SHOTS

Underwater Hockey Formation and Tactics