RULES CHANGES FOR AUGUST 1, 2005

RECOMMEDATIONS FROM THE PRC TO THE COUNCIL

1.        Free-throw execution after the playing time has expired

Issue:

This situation often causes a ‘theater’ and a long delay, before the free-throw is executed, typically without result.

This is unattractive and creates irritation.

Solution:

One of the delays is caused because the defending team wants to bring in some taller players for the defending wall.  This could be prohibited and only the throwing team would be allowed one substitution (in case their intended thrower is on the bench).  Delays are also caused because the teammates of the thrower try to confuse the defenders by forming a cluster around the thrower.  This could easily be prohibited as only one player may hold the ball anyway, and the other players have no other function.

Rules wording:

2:4   add a paragraph at the end:   “Two special restrictions apply for such free-throw executions:

a)    the only player substitution allowed is the substitution of one player for the throwing team;  and

b)    the teammates of the thrower must be positioned at least 3 meters away from the thrower.”

2.        Timekeeper authorized to stop the clock when interrupting the game

Issue:

When the timekeeper whistles (for team time-out or faulty substitution) the referees and players sometimes do not hear it so the action continues.  This leads to confusion and disputes about the correct playing time, as the clock has kept running.

Solution:

Require the timekeeper to stop the clock whenever he whistles to stop the game.

Rules wording:

2:9   “Normally, the referees decide when the clock is to be stopped and restarted in connection with a time-out.  However, when the game is interrupted by the timekeeper’s whistle signal, the timekeeper shall stop the clock”.

3. 14 players

Issue:

Four years ago, it was decided to allow 14 players in the IHF Competition regulations but not yet in the playing rules.  However, it has become apparent that a large number of individual federations have used their prerogative to allow 14 players in national competitions.  There seems to be reason for the IHF to continue to resist this trend that appears to have such widespread support.

Solution:

Change the basic playing rule to allow 14 players.

Rules wording:

4:1   “A team consists of 14 players.”

4.        Appropriate punishment when a player is found to be missing in the scoresheet

Issue:

Traditionally, there has been a very harsh and controversial punishment, in the form of a disqualification of the player, when it is noted that a participating player is not included in the scoresheet.  This is an administrative mistake and the punishment is excessive, also in comparison with the more typical reasons for a disqualification.  Moreover, it is in principle inaccurate to punish the player, because the mistake has been made by the ‘responsible team official’.  Each individual player should not have to check that they are included in the scoresheet.

Solution:

Punish the ‘responsible team official’ instead of the player;   also, change the punishment from disqualification to ‘progressive punishment’; this means that the specific punishment in each case (warning, 2-minute suspension or disqualification) depends on whether the officials of the team were previously punished for other reasons or not.  In other words, a disqualification would only apply in the extreme case when the team officials had already misbehaved and been punished twice.

Rules wording:

4:3, last paragraph:   “The’ responsible team official’ shall ensure that only players who are entitled to participate enter the court. A violation of this requirement is to be equated with unsportsmanlike conduct
by ‘responsible team official’ and is therefore punished progressively under rules 16:1d, 16:3d and 16:6b.”

5.        Piercing
Issue:
The rules give examples of various objects that have traditionally been prohibited because of the danger which they constitute for other players.  A more modern feature, namely piercing, is not mentioned in the rules.  In the opinion of the relevant IHF Commissions it is clear that pierced objects that are clearly visible (i.e., not hidden under the uniform or placed in the mouth) must be prohibited as dangerous.  In analogy with the treatment of rings and earrings, it is understood that they must be removed or properly covered up.		 Solution:
Include this new feature explicitly in the relevant rules.

Rules wording:

4:9   “It is not permitted to wear…….   This includes, for instance……  bracelets, watches, rings, pierced objects, necklaces or chains…..     or any other objects which could be dangerous.”

6     A ‘small’ push can have a dangerous impact if given in the ‘wrong/ moment

Issue:

Rule 8:5, which deals with the type of fouls that “endanger the health of the opponent” and therefore should lead to a disqualification, has traditionally focused on forceful action and heavy impact (e.g., big pushes, striking a player, tripping, pulling a player down to floor).  More and more it has become apparent that players are, unfortunately, getting very skilled at attacking an opponent with very limited impact but at the precise moment when the opponent (especially when jumping or running) is completely defenseless and unaware, so that a small touch leads to a heavy and unprotected fall.   This must be discouraged and must lead to severe punishment.

Solution:

Insert a specific mention of this situation in rule 8:5, to gain the attention of players/coaches and referees.  (Of course, the hope is that players/coaches will act in a more ethical and responsible manner in the first place).  Similarly, insert a mention in Rule 8:3.

Rules wording:

8:5 , following the examples a) – e), insert a ‘Comment’ with the approximate wording:  “Please note that even a minor foul with a small physical impact may be very dangerous and have potentially serious consequences, if the timing of the foul is such that the opponent is defenseless and caught unaware.  This is particularly likely to be the case if the player is jumping or running.  It is the risk to the player that and note the seemingly minor nature of the body contact that should be guiding in determining the appropriateness of a disqualification.” 8:3, 2nd paragraph:  “ Each infraction…..   with a trend of increasingly severe punishments.  As indicated in Rule 16:3 Comment, however, the referees have the right to determine that a particular violation warrants an immediate suspension, even if the player did not previously have a warning.  This is particularly relevant in the case of fouls such as pushing, running into or jumping into an opponent, where the injury risk is relatively greater.”

7.   Correction of an inconsistency

Issue:

In the case of the free-throw, 7-meter-throw, throw-in and throw-off, the throwing player is allowed to touch the ball again after it has rebounded from the goal of the opponents (even if it has not touched another player).  This is simply missing in the rule for the goalkeeper-throw.

Solution:

Insert a statement in the rules for the goalkeeper-throw

Rules wording:

Eliminate 12:3 : “the goalkeeper must not touch the ball again after a goalkeeper-throw, until it has touched another player.”   After the elimination of this specific restriction for the goalkeeper-throw, the goalkeeper-throw is, like all the other throws, covered by the general rule 15:5 :  “The thrower must not touch the ball again until it has touched another player or the goal (of the opponents)”

8.    Throw-in instead of free-throw when the ball has hit the ceiling

Issue:

In 2001 the referee-throw was removed.  When the ball hits the ceiling above the court, the restart is now throw a free-throw for the team that did not last touch ball.  It has been found that this sometimes, capriciously leads to unfair and unintended advantage for the team getting the free-throw, for instance in a position in front of the goal of the opponents without any defenders present. 

Solution:

Change the method of restarting from a free-throw to a throw-in.  This gives both teams an equal chance to be prepared when the throw is taken and it does not cause a delay from the time the ball hits the ceiling until it is in play again.

Rules wording:

Remove rule 13:4c, which is where the explanation of the free-throw exists.   Insert the corresponding wording in the rule indicating when a throw-in is awarded:  11:1  2nd paragraph:  “A throw-in is also awarded when the ball has touched the ceiling or a fixture above the court.  The throw-in is awarded to the team that did not last touch the ball”.  Then in 11:3 a 2nd paragraph is also needed:  “In the case of a throw-in after the ball touched the ceiling, the throw-in is taken at the nearest point on the nearest side line in relation to the spot where the ball touched the ceiling.”

9.  Free-throw execution inside the goal area for infractions inside the goal area

Issue:

It has increasingly been seen as an unattractive delay, when a free-throw (typically because of entering the goal area) has been awarded, and the goalkeeper has to find the ball and then run with it perhaps 10-15 meters to a spot diagonally across, just outside the goal area.   An easier restart has been wanted.

Solution:

It has been determined that the prohibition against allowing the goalkeeper to execute the free-throw from inside the goal-area is mainly an old tradition without good justifications.  Moreover, the goalkeeper should be allowed to execute the throw in the same way as he is used to in the case of the goalkeeper-throw without having to remember any special restrictions.  This does not create any unfair advantages. 

Rules wording:

In Rule 13:6, 6th paragraph, the restriction against execution inside the goal area is removed.  A 7th paragraph is added:  “When a free-throw is awarded for a rules violation inside the goal-area, the free-throw shall be executed by the goalkeeper from any point inside his goal- area.  For this execution, the same rules apply as in the case of the goalkeeper-throw (12:2-3) and thus the restrictions in Rules 13:7, 15:2 and 15:4 1st paragraph do not apply.”

10.      Consistent scale of punishments to apply during the half-time intermission

Issue:

The tradition used to be that certain types of punishment (specifically those causing a reduction in the number of players on the court) could only be given for violations on the court and during the playing time.  Gradually, appropriate changes in this old approach have taken place.  For instance, players can now be given 2-minute suspensions while they are on the bench, a 2-minute punishment can be given against a team official, normal punishments apply during time-outs and team time-outs.  It has now been noticed that one inconsistency remains:  during the half-time intermission the only options are ‘yellow card’ and ‘red card’.  This is precisely the dilemma that previously existed in connection with the punishment of team officials:  after a yellow card had already been given, the referees either had to escalate directly to a harsh disqualification or ‘close their eyes’ to avoid this drastic action.  It is now appropriate to ‘close the gap’ also regarding infraction during the half-time intermission.

Solution:

The same system of punishments should apply during the half-time intermission as during the playing time.  This means that the referees (and the delegate) would have the option of giving a 2-minute suspension (instead of resorting to a disqualification) if the officials of the team (or the player, as the case may be) already had a yellow card.

Rules wording:

The special rules for the half-time intermission, i.e., rules 16:13 c-d are eliminated.  Instead, it is inserted at the outset of rule 16:13:   “The situations described…  generally involve offense during the playing time.  For the purposes of these rules, ‘playing time’ includes overtime, time-outs and half-time intermissions.”

 Volver a Índice de Notas
Volver a página de Inicio
Ir a sección download para iniciar descarga (formato pdf)