IUF Basketball rules (was Size of UNI. Basketball at UNICON X)

<< 9.5 PLAYER OFF UNICYCLE

If a player falls and loses the unicycle, the player must try to get it out

of the way as soon as possible if it can be done without disrupting the flow

of play. If that is not possible, then the player must leave it where it

lands until it can be retrieved without being disruptive. A violation will

result in a technical foul.

snip

9.8 CONTACT OF THE BALL WITH THE UNICYCLE

As long as the player is in contact with the unicycle, riding or not, it is

considered part of a player when a ball bounces out of bounds off the

unicycle. If this happens the other team gets possession of the ball. A

unicycle that is not touching it’s rider is considered part of the court

(for example if he had fallen). What team gets possession will depends on

what happened immediately prior to the ball bouncing off the unicycle.
>>

Here’s my 2 cents worth on the proposed rules:

On Idling & twisting: Does this mean that it’s not allowed for a player to twist

  • then switch to idle ? The one meter radius is very generous. A very big idle
    on a 24 inch wheel (almost horizontal to horizontal) gives you about 90 cm of
    total travel. The sideways drifting allowance should be no more than half that
    each way - giving you a 45 cm radius from where the idle started. It would be
    simplest to just make the 45 cm radius the pivot space & leave a rider free to
    idle and or twist in there.

Another point to consider - does an idling player get a protected idle space

  • say a player is in a front stroke of an idle & another occupies the space
    right behind him so that they collide when the first player does his next back
    stroke My feeling is that a player in an established idle should have this
    space protected. What are your thoughts on this

On Dropped Cycles: A dropped cycle should never become part of the floor. On the
contrary - if a cycle lays in a spot where it may pose a threat to player safety
the ref should stop play - have the cycle removed & award the ball to the team
not responsible for the dropped cycle. Making a dropped cycle part of the floor
seems dangerous to me. Players are looking up at the ball & the rim & shouldn’t
be required to scan the floor for debris. Play should be stopped when a
dangerous condition occurs.

Rather than a technical foul - which should only be called for an intentional
violation - i feel there should be an obstruction call if a dropped or dragged
unicycle causes unintentional disadvantage to the opposing team -
i.e. a player with a free path to the basket is tripped up by an opponent who
falls off his cycle & just couldn’t get his cycle out of the way in time.

Look at it this way: A player on his cycle roughly has right to the space he
physically occupies - roughly shoulder width by wheel diameter. If he gets run
into by an opponent in this space a foul is charged to the opponent. If a player
tries to block the path of an opponent by sticking out an arm and his arm gets
run into a foul is charged to this player. A player next to his cycle takes up
more than his alotted space. It is appreciated that a player often cannot help
being off his cycle - he may be pushed - or crowded - or has to dismount for
safety - so it wouldn’t be practical to call a foul if he inadvertantly gets in
the way - hence the obstruction call - opposing team gets the ball out of bounds
and no foul is charged. This call should be made on offense as well as defense -
a downed cycle can prevent a player from making a defensive play as well

A flagrant foul should be called as well against a player who charges into
another out of control - typically when going after a ball there was clearly no
chance of him/her getting & in the process endangering another player.

One question: What is the purpose of the 4 second zone vs 3 sec in regular
basketball - where does this come from - what’s the thought behind it

I agree we should lose the paragraph on dribbling. Regular basketball rules
combined with the unicycle basketball definition of traveling fully cover all
that already

We can also lose the line about a player off his unicycle being considered
off-side - i don’t think it means anything in basketball - we already
established that a player can only play the ball while mounted on his/her
unicycle. A player not on his cycle touching the ball causes the opposing team
to be awarded the ball out of bounds An issue that does need to be cleared up is
that of a player playing the ball in the process of falling or jumping off
his/her cycle. The ball is life as long as it is played off before any part of
his/her body touches the floor.

In my opinion we should also cut whole paragraph on intentional pushing. Regular
basketball regulations cover this entirely. In reading this paragraph a regular
basketball ref who shows up to whistle a uni bball game assumes uni bball is
supposed to be more physical than regular bball. I don’t believe that’s the
intention. Regular basketball has well defined rules about contact and no
adaptation is required there. I don’t agree that there is any more pushing &
shoving allowed than there would be in regular basketball because many players
are going after the ball - nor is it acceptable for players to push & shove
because they’re looking for balance. On the contrary - because of the nature of
the game - since balance is a major factor and players are supposed to be
mounted without any support - less contact is allowed than in regular
basketball. As far as I know there is much less hand checking - boxing out &
backing up don’t work well because you tend to run each other over or push each
other down - resulting in a foul call for a lot less of a push than there ever
would have been whistled at in a regular bball game

Does anyone know how many teams will be competing in Beijing ?

Ride on,

Sem Abrahams

RE: IUF Basketball rules (was Size of UNI. Basketball at UNICON X)

Sem, all,

Thanks for your input. We need the experienced players to figure these things
out, and it will be nice to get it right the first time around. I cannot offer
choices of which of two ideas are better - it’s up to you players to decide
amongst yourselves. I can help with wording.

> On Idling & twisting: Does this mean that it’s not allowed for a player to
> twist - then switch to idle ?

That’s what it says now.

> The one meter radius is very generous. A very big idle on a 24 inch wheel
> (almost horizontal to horizontal) gives you about 90 cm of total travel. The
> sideways drifting allowance should be no more than half that each way - giving
> you a 45 cm radius from where the idle started. It would be simplest to just
> make the 45 cm radius the pivot space & leave a rider free to idle and or
> twist in there.

I agree if Alberto (and whoever else) does. I meant 1m diameter instead
radius, so the 45 cm (or simple 1m circle) is fine. I think a 1m circle is
easier to remember.

> Another point to consider - does an idling player get a protected idle space -
> say a player is in a front stroke of an idle & another occupies the space
> right behind him so that they collide when the first player does his next back
> stroke. My feeling is that a player in an established idle should have this
> space protected.

I agree. It should be obvious when a player is idling that a certain space is
needed to maintain the idle. If the rider switches to idle as the other rider
closes in, it will take a referee to make a call.

> On Dropped Cycles: A dropped cycle should never become part of the floor. On
> the contrary - if a cycle lays in a spot where it may pose a threat to player
> safety the ref should stop play - have the cycle removed & award the ball to
> the team not responsible for the dropped cycle.

I agree. Also a dropped cycle could be strategically placed if it were
allowed to be part of the floor. I believe the unicycle should be considered
part of the rider at all times, and the ref. should indeed stop play if
necessary for safety.

> Rather than a technical foul - which should only be called for an intentional
> violation - I feel there should be an obstruction call if a dropped or dragged
> unicycle causes unintentional disadvantage to the opposing team -

Agree.

> A flagrant foul should be called as well against a player who charges into
> another out of control - typically when going after a ball there was clearly
> no chance of him/her getting & in the process endangering another player.

Also agree. Beginner riders are not as stable, but should not be a danger to
others, regardless of those others’ skill level.

> One question: What is the purpose of the 4 second zone vs 3 sec in regular
> basketball - where does this come from - what’s the thought behind it

Alberto?

> I agree we should lose the paragraph on dribbling. Regular basketball rules
> combined with the unicycle basketball definition of traveling fully cover all
> that already

OK.

> We can also lose the line about a player off his unicycle being considered
> off-side

OK.

> An issue that does need to be cleared up is that of a player playing the ball
> in the process of falling or jumping off his/her cycle. The ball is life as
> long as it is played off before any part of his/her body touches the floor.

That is how I understood it when I played. We must make sure the rules
specify that.

> a regular basketball ref who shows up to whistle a uni bball game assumes uni
> bball is supposed to be more physical than regular bball. I don’t believe
> that’s the intention. Regular basketball has well defined rules about contact
> and no adaptation is required there. I don’t agree that there is any more
> pushing & shoving allowed than there would be in regular basketball because
> many players are going after the ball - nor is it acceptable for players to
> push & shove because they’re looking for balance. On the contrary - because of
> the nature of the game - since balance is a major factor and players are
> supposed to be mounted without any support - less contact is allowed than in
> regular basketball.

This brings up the interesting point that regular basketball refs need help when
being introduced to our game. Perhaps it should be emphasized that the rules in
this area are indeed the same, and refs should not assume a greater deal of
contact than normal basketball rules would allow. This may help new referees
know when to whistle in such situations. Alberto?

> Does anyone know how many teams will be competing in Beijing ?

I think less than hockey, but I don’t know.

Let’s keep the discussion going until we’re finished, John Foss, the Uni-Cyclone
http://www.unicycling.com

“The ultimate wheel – it feels so good. It’s the ultimate feeling”

  • Jack Halpern, 1986

RE: IUF Basketball rules (was Size of UNI. Basketball at UNICON X)

Alberto, Sem,

Based on your messages, I’ve reached the conclusions below. The next step is to
write them into rules, which I will attempt to do when I have time…

> > That’s what it says now.

> I prefer what it says now, but it is not too important to me. If Sem believes
> that it will improve the game to allow switching from twist to idle or vice
> cersa, that is OK with me.

I will reword it to allow idling or twisting, but the rider must stay within a
50cm radius (1m circle) from where the rider stopped dribbling.

> He should have his idling space.

I will try to describe how you allow for that. I will need you guys to check it
and see that it will be interpreted the way we intend.

> > > A dropped cycle should never become part of the floor. On

> Fine with me.

Cycle counts as part of the rider – on or off.

> > > Rather than a technical foul - which should only be called for an
> > > intentional violation - I feel there should be an obstruction call if a
> > > dropped or dragged unicycle causes unintentional disadvantage to the
> > > opposing team -

Will do.

> > > A flagrant foul should be called as well against a player who charges into
> > > another out of control - typically when going after a ball there was
> > > clearly no chance of him/her getting & in the process endangering another
> > > player.

Will also do.

> > > One question: What is the purpose of the 4 second zone vs 3 sec in regular
> > > basketball - where does this come from - what’s the thought behind it
> >
> Actually, it is down from 4 seconds. It just takes longer to go in and out in
> unis. In regular basketball, a player really never has to leave the 3 second
> zone. Only one of his feet goes out while the other is raised off the floor
> for a split second. If that player is a seven footer, his body will be well
> inside the 3 second zone.

This argument sound good for allowing 4 seconds. Does Sem agree?

> > > I agree we should lose the paragraph on dribbling. Regular basketball
> > > rules combined with the unicycle basketball definition of traveling fully
> > > cover all that already

Out.

> > > We can also lose the line about a player off his unicycle being considered
> > > off-side

Way out.

> > > An issue that does need to be cleared up is that of a player playing the
> > > ball in the process of falling or jumping off his/her cycle. The ball is
> > > life as long as it is played off before any part of his/her body touches
> > > the floor.
> >
> > That is how I understood it when I played. We must make sure the rules
> > specify that.
>
> Yes, it is live. But I have a question. If he leaves the uni to slam dunk, and
> his uni trips somebody else. It is clear that he gets the penalty, but is the
> basket disallowed?

I cannot say. Discussion required.

> > > a regular basketball ref who shows up to whistle a uni bball game assumes
> > > uni bball is supposed to be more physical than regular bball. I don’t
> > > believe that’s the

> > This brings up the interesting point that regular basketball refs need help
> > when being introduced to our game. Perhaps it should be emphasized that the
> > rules in this area are indeed the same, and refs should not assume a
> > greater deal of contact than normal basketball rules would allow. This may
> > help new referees know when to whistle in such situations.
>
> Actually, I agree with Sem, except as noted, less contact should be allowed.
> John also brings up a good point. Refs should not assume that there is much
> difference from normal basketball, contact or otherwise.

I will try to put something in to give this impression to new refs (will people
actually read these rules? Doesn’t seem to happen much with our other rules…).

John Foss, the Uni-Cyclone http://www.unicycling.com

“The ultimate wheel – it feels so good. It’s the ultimate feeling”

  • Jack Halpern, 1986

Re: IUF Basketball rules (was Size of UNI. Basketball at UNICON X)

----- Original Message ----- From: John Foss <john_foss@asinet.com> To:
<SEMCYCLE@aol.com>; John Foss <john_foss@asinet.com>; <alberto@taino.net>;
<sander@mpch-mainz.mpg.de>; <unicycling@winternet.com> Sent: Wednesday, April
26, 2000 9:06 PM Subject: RE: IUF Basketball rules (was Size of UNI. Basketball
at UNICON X)

> Sem, all,
>
> Thanks for your input. We need the experienced players to figure these things
> out, and it will be nice to get it right the first time around. I cannot offer
> choices of which of two ideas are better - it’s up to you players to decide
> amongst yourselves. I can help with wording.
>
> > On Idling & twisting: Does this mean that it’s not allowed for a player to
> > twist - then switch to idle ?
>
> That’s what it says now.
I prefer what it says now, but it is not too important to me. If Sem believes
that it will improve the game to allow switching from twist to idle or vice
cersa, that is OK with me.

>
> > The one meter radius is very generous. A very big idle on a 24 inch wheel
> > (almost horizontal to horizontal) gives you about 90 cm of total travel. The
> > sideways drifting allowance should be no more than half that each way -
> > giving you a 45 cm radius from where the idle started. It would be simplest
> > to just make the 45 cm radius the pivot space & leave a rider free to idle
> > and or twist in there.
>
> I agree if Alberto (and whoever else) does. I meant 1m diameter instead
> radius, so the 45 cm (or simple 1m circle) is fine. I think a 1m circle is
> easier to remember.
Yes, I prefer the smaller radius, and it is better to round it up to .5 meter
radius or 1 meter circle.

>
> > Another point to consider - does an idling player get a protected idle space
> > - say a player is in a front stroke of an idle & another occupies the space
> > right behind him so that they collide when the first player does his next
> > back stroke. My feeling is that a player in an established idle should have
> > this space protected.
>
> I agree. It should be obvious when a player is idling that a certain space is
> needed to maintain the idle. If the rider switches to idle as the other rider
> closes in, it will take a referee to make a call.
>
He should have his idling space.

> > On Dropped Cycles: A dropped cycle should never become part of the floor. On
> > the contrary - if a cycle lays in a spot where it may pose a threat to
> > player safety the ref should stop play - have the cycle removed & award the
> > ball to the team not responsible for the dropped cycle.
>
> I agree. Also a dropped cycle could be strategically placed if it were allowed
> to be part of the floor. I believe the unicycle should be
considered
> part of the rider at all times, and the ref. should indeed stop play if
> necessary for safety.
>
Fine with me.

> > Rather than a technical foul - which should only be called for an
> > intentional violation - I feel there should be an obstruction call if a
> > dropped or dragged unicycle causes unintentional disadvantage to the
> > opposing team -
>
> Agree.
>
OK
> > A flagrant foul should be called as well against a player who charges into
> > another out of control - typically when going after a ball there was clearly
> > no chance of him/her getting & in the process endangering another player.
>
> Also agree. Beginner riders are not as stable, but should not be a danger
to
> others, regardless of those others’ skill level.
>
OK
> > One question: What is the purpose of the 4 second zone vs 3 sec in regular
> > basketball - where does this come from - what’s the thought behind it
>
Actually, it is down from 4 seconds. It just takes longer to go in and out in
unis. In regular basketball, a player really never has to leave the 3 second
zone. Only one of his feet goes out while the other is raised off the floor for
a split second. If that player is a seven footer, his body will be well inside
the 3 second zone.
> Alberto?
>
> > I agree we should lose the paragraph on dribbling. Regular basketball rules
> > combined with the unicycle basketball definition of traveling fully cover
> > all that already
>
> OK.
>
Very important. It was confusing.

> > We can also lose the line about a player off his unicycle being considered
> > off-side
>
> OK.
>
OK
> > An issue that does need to be cleared up is that of a player playing the
> > ball in the process of falling or jumping off his/her cycle. The ball is
> > life as long as it is played off before any part of his/her body touches the
> > floor.
>
> That is how I understood it when I played. We must make sure the rules
> specify that.

Yes, it is live. But I have a question. If he leaves the uni to slam dunk, and
his uni trips somebody else. It is clear that he gets the penalty, but is the
basket disallowed?

>
> > a regular basketball ref who shows up to whistle a uni bball game assumes
> > uni bball is supposed to be more physical than regular bball. I don’t
> > believe that’s the intention. Regular basketball has well defined rules
> > about contact and no adaptation is required there. I don’t agree that there
> > is any more pushing & shoving allowed than there would be in regular
> > basketball because many players are going after the ball - nor is it
> > acceptable for players to push & shove because they’re looking for balance.
> > On the contrary - because of the nature of the game - since balance is a
> > major factor and players are supposed to be mounted without any support -
> > less contact is allowed than in regular basketball.
>
>
> This brings up the interesting point that regular basketball refs need
help
> when being introduced to our game. Perhaps it should be emphasized that
the
> rules in this area are indeed the same, and refs should not assume a greater
> deal of contact than normal basketball rules would allow. This may help new
> referees know when to whistle in such situations. Alberto?

There is more holding than pushing and shoving inside the 4 second zone.
Remember that the player has a right to his idling space. But it gets crowded in
there. Idling is not one dimensional where the tire goes exactly over the same
spot as the previous idle. So he will clash with somebody else who is protecting
his idle space. This holding will typically be more of a reflex than
intentional. That is what the referee must understand. The regular pushing and
shoving should not be allowed. Actually, I agree with Sem, except as noted, less
contact should be allowed. John also brings up a good point. Refs should not
assume that there is much difference from normal basketball, contact or
otherwise.
>
> > Does anyone know how many teams will be competing in Beijing ?
>
> I think less than hockey, but I don’t know.
>
My guess is that there will be many, eight or more. I just hope that there are
many quality teams.
>
> Let’s keep the discussion going until we’re finished,
>
Yes, this work should have been done years ago.

> John Foss, the Uni-Cyclone http://www.unicycling.com
>
Alberto Ruiz The Uni-GrandPapa

Re: IUF Basketball rules (was Size of UNI. Basketball at UNICON X)

Greetings

In message “RE: IUF Basketball rules (was Size of UNI. Basketball at UNICON X
)”, John Foss wrote…
>Alberto, Sem,
>
>Based on your messages, I’ve reached the conclusions below. The next step is
>to write them into rules, which I will attempt to do when I have time…

If possible, I’d like to translate these rules into Japanese. To save time, can
we start with the old riles? How different will the new ones be?

>
>> > That’s what it says now.
>
>> I prefer what it says now, but it is not too important to me. If Sem
>> believes that it will improve the game to allow switching from twist to idle
>> or vice cersa, that is OK with me.
>
>I will reword it to allow idling or twisting, but the rider must stay within a
>50cm radius (1m circle) from where the rider stopped dribbling.
>
>> He should have his idling space.
>
>I will try to describe how you allow for that. I will need you guys to check
>it and see that it will be interpreted the way we intend.
>
>> > > A dropped cycle should never become part of the floor. On
>
>> Fine with me.
>
>Cycle counts as part of the rider – on or off.
>
>> > > Rather than a technical foul - which should only be called for an
>> > > intentional violation - I feel there should be an obstruction call if a
>> > > dropped or dragged unicycle causes unintentional disadvantage to the
>> > > opposing team -
>
>Will do.
>
>> > > A flagrant foul should be called as well against a player who charges
>> > > into another out of control - typically when going after a ball there
>> > > was clearly no chance of him/her getting & in the process endangering
>> > > another player.
>
>Will also do.
>
>> > > One question: What is the purpose of the 4 second zone vs 3 sec in
>> > > regular basketball - where does this come from - what’s the thought
>> > > behind it
>> >
>> Actually, it is down from 4 seconds. It just takes longer to go in and out
>> in unis. In regular basketball, a player really never has to leave the 3
>> second zone. Only one of his feet goes out while the other is raised off the
>> floor for a split second. If that player is a seven footer, his body will be
>> well inside the 3 second zone.
>
>This argument sound good for allowing 4 seconds. Does Sem agree?
>
>> > > I agree we should lose the paragraph on dribbling. Regular basketball
>> > > rules combined with the unicycle basketball definition of traveling
>> > > fully cover all that already
>
>Out.
>
>> > > We can also lose the line about a player off his unicycle being
>> > > considered off-side
>
>Way out.
>
>> > > An issue that does need to be cleared up is that of a player playing the
>> > > ball in the process of falling or jumping off his/her cycle. The ball is
>> > > life as long as it is played off before any part of his/her body touches
>> > > the floor.
>> >
>> > That is how I understood it when I played. We must make sure the rules
>> > specify that.
>>
>> Yes, it is live. But I have a question. If he leaves the uni to slam dunk,
>> and his uni trips somebody else. It is clear that he gets the penalty, but
>> is the basket disallowed?
>
>I cannot say. Discussion required.
>
>> > > a regular basketball ref who shows up to whistle a uni bball game
>> > > assumes uni bball is supposed to be more physical than regular bball. I
>> > > don’t believe that’s the
>
>> > This brings up the interesting point that regular basketball refs need
>> > help when being introduced to our game. Perhaps it should be emphasized
>> > that the rules in this area are indeed the same, and refs should not
>> > assume a greater deal of contact than normal basketball rules would allow.
>> > This may help new referees know when to whistle in such situations.
>>
>> Actually, I agree with Sem, except as noted, less contact should be allowed.
>> John also brings up a good point. Refs should not assume that there is much
>> difference from normal basketball, contact or otherwise.
>
>I will try to put something in to give this impression to new refs (will
>people actually read these rules? Doesn’t seem to happen much with our other
>rules…).
>
>John Foss, the Uni-Cyclone http://www.unicycling.com
>
>“The ultimate wheel – it feels so good. It’s the ultimate feeling”
>- Jack Halpern, 1986
>
>

Regards, Jack Halpern CJK Dictionary Publishing Society, http://www.kanji.org
Voice: +81-48-481-3103 Fax: +81-48-479-1323

Re: IUF Basketball rules (was Size of UNI. Basketball at UNICON X)

----- Original Message ----- From: Jack Halpern <jack@mail.hinocatv.ne.jp> To:
John Foss <john_foss@asinet.com>
Cc: ‘Alberto Ruiz’ <alberto@taino.net>; <SEMCYCLE@aol.com>;
<sander@mpch-mainz.mpg.de>; <unicycling@winternet.com> Sent: Friday, April
28, 2000 9:09 PM Subject: Re: IUF Basketball rules (was Size of UNI.
Basketball at UNICON X)

> Greetings
>
> In message "RE: IUF Basketball rules (was Size of UNI. Basketball at
UNICON X
> )", John Foss wrote…
> >Alberto, Sem,
> >
> >Based on your messages, I’ve reached the conclusions below. The next
step is
> >to write them into rules, which I will attempt to do when I have time…
>
> If possible, I’d like to translate these rules into Japanese. To save time,
> can we start with the old riles? How different will the new ones be?

The new ones are almost ready and they are not long. Just wait a few days. Do
not translate the old ones. You will only confuse people. As far as I know, this
is the first time where rules are written as a consensus between persons that
actually take this activity seriously.

Alberto Ruiz