Jump to Navigation
LOBP is now in archive mode... read more at leagueofbikepolo.com/goodbye.

Weird delayed penalties situation. NAH Ruleset 4.3

In EHBPC 2014 we had to deal with weird delayed situation, let's share some here and see how to deal with it.

Classical move from the ref: being too quick on the wistle:

Team A have the Ball, Team B make a foul that the ref see but Team A still get the ball in a good position. Ref call the foul and stop the game, breaking the advantage.
-In this situation, almost every time, Team A complain because they lost the advantage. Ref apologies and only reset the game. During this time, Team B, can get back in a good defensive position, making Team A goes from a situation who should have been a advantage to a shitty situation where Team is ready to defend.
These days it seems normal that ref cancel the advantage and only apologies...
Why not giving back the advantage to Team A, even if the ref had stop the game?
This way Team A don't get completly fuck by ref mistake. In the actual situation, they lost their advantage and Team B get the time to reset in a good position, with my solution, they can at least get the advantage, even if Team B had time to get back in good position.

When Benji from Utopists was reffing our game against Instinct in Padova he did such a thing. After a mallet under the wheel he blows the wistle, and we still get the advantage. Regarding the foul and the situation, it seems it was a good choice.

What happen if the ball goes out during an advantage situation? Should we care of who put the ball out if it was not on purpose?
We get penalized during a game in wich a player, Doddi, was ball handling like pro during minutes. So he get an advantage situation wich lasted long, and when we finally success to touch the ball, it goes out of bounds. As it was one of us who push the ball out, they kept the ball again and still get the advantage, this shit lasted for ever. Is that logical or should we say an advantage situation is broken when the ball goes out?

What should do a player to stop the advantage, only touching the ball with the end of is mallet or really get a small control of it?
If we say that just touching or shooting the ball away is not enough, does that mean that a player can score during an advantage for the other team by shooting from is own side? It seems that in Ice hockey this can be true.
According to the ruleset, a possession for the last player who touched the ball, so is that the same when an advantage situation occcurs? does a small touch count as possesion?

Alternative question: If a touch by the end is a control, what happens if you touch it while highsticking. This happens in Padova EHBPC 2014. A team get the advantage, tried to score, the ball after the shot deflected high in the air on some bike, the keeper try to control it way above his own head and touched it. The ref blow the wistle for stopping the game, thinking that this foul and the lost of the ball stopped the advantage. Right after the blow the ball went straight to nets, making the high stick move a own goal move. As the wistle where blow before, ref didn't counted in. I think he just gave the ball back to the team who had the advantage, making the high sticking counting as a possession... This was messy as shit to deal with.

When a player make a foul during an advantage for the other team, the ruleset say that the team should take 30 sec if I get it right. Isn't that too much for some really small fouls?

1) I think it is a valid point that an advantage should be given after a foul, no matter what. If the ref is too quick on the whistle the game should continue with an advantage of the fouled team. I personally think it would be totally valid to put this in the ruleset.

2) If the ball is knocked out of the game it is more difficult I guess. Clearly if the team with advantage knocks the ball out the advantage is gone. Clearly when the other team knocks the ball out there is reason to keep the advantage. If there is a shot deflected out of bounds it is more difficult. On the one hand the team made a shot which means they already had a certain "use" of their advantage. On the other hand the other team was never in possession. So what to do?

3) In Padova refs were all waiting for a "real" controll which means not touching or shooting the ball away but "stopping" it.

According to the ruleset you cannot get scored on during an advantage (except an own goal). §
So if they shoot the ball away and it is a goal it does not count

About the high sticking situation: In this situation the high sticking would be an additional foul. Most logically the game should continue and the goal should count. However if the ref was too quick on the whistle and didn't wait until the team who fouled has some real ball possession we are back at point 1). There should at least be a 30sec penalty as the team who fouled commited another foul.

4) That's what it says. Not sure if it was always enforced like that at EHBPC. I witnessed it a few times.

1- Agreed. If the ref recognizes he messed up, advantage should be granted.

4- I did enforce that rule both ways actually. I gave a minor as an upgraded turn-over and I had a rejoust as well. If the foul was really small, maybe the player could have avoided it, or maybe the ref could still have the discretion to not call it. Remember that we want to mostly call the fouls that have a real impact on the game.

I don't think I understand, how do you give the aggrieved team the advantage after you've stopped the play in err? Do you make the person who's wheel has been jammed lie down on the ground again and restart from there giving that team the ball in the offensive zone?

I believe he is suggesting restarting play with the delayed penalty still in effect.

I don't really think this is reasonable, advantage is the referees responsibility to recognize, but it's not a right of the team to have it imo. If a play gets mistakenly blown dead in hockey, or a penalty called instead of giving advantage in soccer, you don't move backwards and give the team the advantage over again, you assess the penalty and move on

Okay, that makes a lot more sense than what I thought he was suggesting, but I still think I agree with you that I don't like it.

Not to derail the thread with a semantic argument, but I really think we should stop referring to it as an 'advantage'. We're borrowing both from soccer (advantage) and hockey (delayed penalty), but it's a lot closer to hockey where the delayed call becomes a powerplay in and of itself with the goalie coming out of the net, rather than soccer where the advantage call is just used to avoid silly situations where a team benefits from their own foul.

I like clement's the idea to the extent that he seems to be trying to make the delayed call a more meaningful advantage- but restarting with an advantage in my opinion, becomes a little bit awkward. A missed call is a missed call and both teams need to just get over it.

The issue if you don't give the advantage after a missed call is that the fouled team lost everything:

Scneario A, where the ref make a good call:
-You are in a good situation, the opponent make a foul but you still have the ball, ref raise his arm and shout advantage, so you are still in a good situation PLUS you have a second chance if you miss (as in ice hockey).

Scenario B, where the ref make the wrong call, blowing before checking who have the ball:
-You are in a good situation, the opponent make a foul but you still have the ball, ref blow the whistle calling the foul and break the advantage. You come back to your half, the opponent team have enough time to set up their defense against, so you lost everything: good situation + the second chance.

Scenario C: Wrong call, ref blow the whistle too quickly, notice he made a wrong call so he give you the ball and the advantage he brokes.
-In this scenario you only get fooled because the opponent can reset in a good defensive position after the call, but at least you don't loose the second chance.

To say that they are losing everything is a bit much, and honestly how many times does this happen per game? If it is happening often enough to be a big problem, maybe you need better refs.

In nearly every other sport that offers some kind of delayed penalty/advantage, if the ref blows early, the game moves on and does not reset with a delayed penalty/advantage still in effect. Refs make mistakes, it happens, deal with it. It shouldn't be happening more than a handful times in a tournament if refs are well trained.

I saw that happens quite often that's why i'm care.

I agree that on a lot of situations a ref can just let things going and apologize for his mistake. But if the foul is a really good one and broke a really good situation, late in a tight game, i would like to give him the power to make such a call.

Yes we need better ref, but this is a call that can happens even with good refs as sometimes you can be too quick on whistle.

Anyway that's not a big deal, but this goes a bit with something i find weird with the delayed penalties system:

If you're the victime of a foul who still let you the ball, you get this awesome situation where you have still the ball and a raising arm ref who give you another chance. If you're the victim of a foul who make you lose the ball, you only get a ball turnover (most of the time).
In one case a foul who is light enough to make you keep the ball give you an extra advantage.
In the other, a foul hard enough to make you lose the ball only give you the ball back (and give the time for the guilty team to set up their defense).

Ok, so what's the solution you are suggesting? I'm just trying to understand how that would work?

Effectively a double reset?

Ref blow the wisthle too quickly and broke the advantage situation. So instead of juste making the usual reset, he gave the victim team the advantage again, so they restart like after a goal but still have their second chance to score.

So two turnovers?

It seems overly complicated to me. The delayed penalty is only meant to potentially replace the turnover, and let the game flow, not give an extra advantage beyond that (yes, sometimes it might).

If the position the team are in is so advantageous, then the ref should be looking at a 30 second penalty anyway:

"§6.5.1 – An infraction that takes away a clear scoring opportunity or a distinct situational
advantage from the fouled team will result in a 30–second man–advantage penalty.

2) Is a missed call by that ref.
If the play is stopped b/c the ball went out of play, no matter who touched it last, the ref should call his penalty and play should begin again from that point. Penalty calls supersede prior rules about possession and last touch on out-of-bounds plays. If your team committed the foul then it was right for Dodi's team to get the ball back, but they shouldn't get their advantage again. Once they are dispossessed in the flow of play, the game should play on from that point (unless your team fouls them another time).

We were discussing this at NA's. So if Team A has advantage, and the ball goes out on Team B, Team A should get the ball back and advantage continues? And if the ball goes out on Team A, Team A should get the ball back but the advantage is over?

I hope this is still on topic here. I have been wondering about a similar issue, namely other factors affecting an delayed advantage call. What if team A has possession with advantage but then fouls against team B while still in possession. Advantage is cancelled out? Advantage goes to the other team? Who gets the ball?

Restart with possession to team A. That doesn't stop you giving a 30 second or two minute penalty against A if warranted (otherwise it would mean a free for all), but regardless the ball would start with team A.

§ – If the non–penalized team subsequently fouls the opponent while on the delayed
penalty, the play is stopped by the referee and the game will restart according to the
procedure outlined in §6.3.

§6.3.2 – Coincidental penalties at the severity level of a ball turnover will cause a stoppage in play
and restart per §4.1

4.1 is the joust.

So, it's stoppage of play and rejoust. We did it this way during the EHBPC, it worked pretty well.

Ha. That seems wrong to me.

But yes, that's your answer. A rejoust...

Here I was thinking I had read the rules thoroughly and often. Thank you for being a more careful reader than I.

Ya dude.

Not sure why I posed it as a question.

Second part, Yes.

But the first part, how does the "advantage continue"? Surely it's just a restart, with possesion to A, which is what it would be anyway.... (of course if B put it out on purpose, it's delay of game, and therefore should probably be a 30 second against B)