| KLunos
- 15 Jul 2011
Total Posts: 16
|
I can't believe I don't know this, but I wanted to clarify.
If you lose your mallet it's a turnover, including if you simply let go of your mallet inadvertantly when you're in possession of the puck. Right?
So the question is ...
If you have a string attached to your mallet to wrap your finger around, is it a turnover if you let go or lose your mallet?
Kevlyn Lunos,
Austin, Texas
2011 Pro-C Runner-up
|
|
|
| Q
- 15 Jul 2011
Total Posts: 497
|
KLunos said: I can't believe I don't know this, but I wanted to clarify.
If you lose your mallet it's a turnover, including if you simply let go of your mallet inadvertantly when you're in possession of the puck. Right?
So the question is ...
If you have a string attached to your mallet to wrap your finger around, is it a turnover if you let go or lose your mallet? |
This is my understanding:
By using a string ... if you lose grip of the mallet but the mallet is still attached to you by the string, play continues.
From rule V.5
"If a player takes a shot and drops his mallet and the puck enters his/her own goal for a score without it being deflected by the defensive player, the point counts. The player is permitted to stop the puck with hands or body. No point would be scored if the puck enters the opponent's goal due to the distraction. If a player shoots and the defense loses the mallet, the defense may not use hands or body to stop the shot if the shot occurred prior to or simultaneously with the losing of the mallet. The point counts if it scores."
As long as you don't lose possession of the string as well, even if you lose the grip of the mallet itself, I believe it would not count as "dropping the mallet" in the above rule. So while if you shot, lost grip of the mallet but still had it attached via a string, and scored, it would count as a goal. Only consequence is if it scores on you, either on its own or if the defender deflects/shoots it....it counts as a goal against you since you didn't technically drop the mallet.
|
|
|
| TheAirHockeyGuy
- 16 Jul 2011
Total Posts: 472
|
KLunos said: I can't believe I don't know this, but I wanted to clarify.
If you lose your mallet it's a turnover, including if you simply let go of your mallet inadvertantly when you're in possession of the puck. Right?
So the question is ...
If you have a string attached to your mallet to wrap your finger around, is it a turnover if you let go or lose your mallet? |
The string rule has been discussed at recent board meetings but I am unsure what the final results of those discussions were. I have a feeling that eventually this will no longer be allowed but as of right now, as far as I know it still is.
Chris Lee
Co-Founder, CEO
Air Hockey Players Association (AHPA)
|
|
|
| tableman
- 17 Jul 2011
Total Posts: 690
|
There was not enough support for changing the string rule, so it stands. That means: as long as the string is still attached to your hand, you are considered to be in possession of your mallet.
Mark
|
|
|
| fupersly
- 31 Jul 2011
Total Posts: 231
|
| I'm actually still not 100% sure we didn't overturn that rule, Mark - if you look at the rules on AHW now, there's no mention of a string rule anymore, which I'm pretty sure used to be there. I believe we may have taken that language out to imply that the rule was changed, but it's something we should clarify because I think the general consensus was that if you lose control of the mallet except for the help of the string, it's still the same basic condition of having lost total control of the mallet itself.
|
|
|
|
| tableman
- 31 Jul 2011
Total Posts: 690
|
fupersly said: | I'm actually still not 100% sure we didn't overturn that rule, Mark - if you look at the rules on AHW now, there's no mention of a string rule anymore, which I'm pretty sure used to be there. I believe we may have taken that language out to imply that the rule was changed, but it's something we should clarify because I think the general consensus was that if you lose control of the mallet except for the help of the string, it's still the same basic condition of having lost total control of the mallet itself. |
Haven't you been a head ref? :) I don't remember if there was a particular string rule, other than the rule stating that strings are legal to attach mallet to hand. I do know that we debated extensively changing the rule, and those favoring changing it were disappointed that the rule remains the same.
It may be that we considered the string issue an interpretation of the rules, thus requiring only a majority to change. In any case the interpretation of the written rule remains the same: you haven't lost control of the mallet as long as the string is connected to both hand and mallet.
Mark
|
|
|
| travis
- 01 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 530
|
fupersly said: | I'm actually still not 100% sure we didn't overturn that rule, Mark - if you look at the rules on AHW now, there's no mention of a string rule anymore, which I'm pretty sure used to be there. |
That doesn't necessarily mean anything.. :| The rules need to be checked, as I don't have access to all of the minutes that would help me bring the rules up to date. I guess that's something I'll have on my to-do list, now.
Travis Luscombe
AirHockeyWorld.com Webmaster
http://twitter.com/air_hockey
|
|
|
|
| fupersly
- 01 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 231
|
| I recognize that we still play with the understanding that losing control of a stringed mallet doesn't result in a loss of mallet penalty, but that's only because we don't have clarification on whether we overturned that rule or not. I know that very few players do that anymore, and that Keith Fletcher (who is probably the most notable player who does use a stringed mallet) would like to see the rule overturned. It seems like a simple change, but it's been a low-priority matter since it was brought up so we just need to make a clear decision on it and move on.
|
|
|
| goran
- 01 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 428
|
tableman said: There was not enough support for changing the string rule, so it stands. That means: as long as the string is still attached to your hand, you are considered to be in possession of your mallet.
Mark |
I remember it like Mark does. The string rule has not been changed.
|
|
|
|
| tableman
- 01 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 690
|
fupersly said: | I recognize that we still play with the understanding that losing control of a stringed mallet doesn't result in a loss of mallet penalty, but that's only because we don't have clarification on whether we overturned that rule or not. I know that very few players do that anymore, and that Keith Fletcher (who is probably the most notable player who does use a stringed mallet) would like to see the rule overturned. It seems like a simple change, but it's been a low-priority matter since it was brought up so we just need to make a clear decision on it and move on. |
Yeah, and that's why I remember it so well that we didn't change the rule, Keith argued to change it but left empty-handed. (Uhh, except for the mallet still attached to the string on his finger. :)
Mark
|
|
|
|
| KLunos
- 02 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 16
|
Good to see I sparked a good convo ;) I was curious because to me, it seems silly to say you didnt lose control of your mallet if you have a string attached.. You still lost control of it! But! If that indeed was the case, I figured it could be worth attaching a string.
I hardly ever lose my mallet, but I know air hockey is a game of possessions, and if a string will give me a few more of those, why not go for it?
Kevlyn Lunos,
Austin, Texas
2011 Pro-C Runner-up
|
|
|
|
| fupersly
- 02 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 231
|
Well, that's kind of the tricky part about this rule, Kevlyn - if you do lose control of a stringed mallet now you don't automatically lose possession of the puck, but you are at risk for being scored on and you don't get the benefit of being able to cover up your goal to prevent an inadvertent point as you would if you were using a regular mallet. It's enough of a distraction to both players and untrained referees that it should probably be eliminated, and I don't think we'll go much past this meeting before it is - at least that's my hope. 
|
First |
1 |
Last
Forums Home / The Lobby / Simple question regarding the rules
|
