The Officiating Procedures reference multiple visual/hand signals that — although widely known — are not defined in the Cues, Codes, and Signals document.
1.7.1 All communication to Skaters must be accompanied by the corresponding hand signal and verbal cue.
The “stand” and “done” hand signals are well known but not universally applied. They are not defined in the Cues, Codes, and Signals document. I’m not aware of a formal definition anywhere else.
2.7.2 When a Skater enters the box, a Penalty Box Official will direct them to the appropriate side and/or seat.
Penalty box officials use a variety of different raised-arm or pointing signals. Has there ever been an intention to define a specific visual signal for this action?
7.3.1. When a Skater arrives at the Penalty Box and there is no seat available for them, a Penalty Box Official will signal to the Skater that the Penalty Box is full with the corresponding hand signal and verbal cue.
I believe this cue should be defined as a variant to “Directing Skaters On and Off the Track” on page 13 of Officiating Codes, Cues, and Signals, but as far as I am aware it is not formally defined anywhere. It was included in the Officiating Verbal Cues document ca. 2016.
I wonder if it’s really as universal as we might think. I modify my hand signals for the box based on a number of factors. Venue constraints, accessibility requests from the leagues, etc.
Enshrining something specific for these might make necessary adaptations for accessibility and equity more difficult.
2 Likes
I think I may be reading those somewhat differently.
1.7.1, to me only implies that we have to use a cue when one exists. If a skater asks me how much time they have left, and I tell them “13 seconds”, there IS no corresponding hand signal for that, so I’m not required to use one. I don’t read 1.7.1 as implying that ALL communications with skaters MUST have a hand signal.
1 Like
+1 to Wishbone, my signals change based on the venue and where the box is related to the track and how skaters are entering it. Overall I think we shouldn’t formalize or crystallize ANYTHING that isn’t actively causing a impact due to inconsistency.
It’s important to note the difference between “officials want to be told what to do and how to do it,” which is a non-reason to formalize things, from “diversity of behavior negatively impacts the game.”
1.7.1 I read this as, “if there is a standardized cue or signal, you must use it.” If there isn’t we needn’t, so we think to ourselves what is best, and if we find that there’s a best way and everyone develops it and does it, that’s great, but it actually doubly means we don’t need to standardize it because it’s not inconsistent.
It’s also, in my opinion, a little bit dangerous to standardize language for edge-case or rare things like “sending a skater back to the track,” because “Right” can too easily be the enemy of “Good.” Just having PBT/PBM talk to skaters using natural language is highly effective – formalization means they have to remember it which can lead to hiccups and delays for people who know there’s something but can’t bring it to mind because it is rare. (Versus, color number STAND and DONE are formalized because the variation led to skaters leaving the box early, which was impactful, so we formalized it to solve a real problem.)
2 Likes
Seems like I conflated three cases that have slight but meaningful differences!
7.3.1. When a Skater arrives at the Penalty Box and there is no seat available for them, a Penalty Box Official will signal to the Skater that the Penalty Box is full with the corresponding hand signal and verbal cue.
To me this is unambiguously requiring an “in the queue” signal, which is missing from the doc. The fact that it was once documented reinforces this impression. Do y’all feel otherwise about 7.3.1?
1.7.1 All communication to Skaters must be accompanied by the corresponding hand signal and verbal cue.
I think @AdamSmasher is right that I am over-reading the prescriptivity of this clause. I probably do so because I have the “Stand” and “Done” hand signals in my head. Thoughts on why those specific visual signals are important below.
2.7.2 When a Skater enters the box, a Penalty Box Official will direct them to the appropriate side and/or seat.
This is the least explicit requirement; it’s fair to say that a standardization wasn’t intended here.
Responding to @dangermuffin - your point
I think we shouldn’t formalize or crystallize ANYTHING that isn’t actively causing a impact due to inconsistency.
is well taken, but I’d like to highlight a different facet of the problem that I feel supports standardization in some, but not all, cases. I frequently work with teams who have skaters that are deaf, hard-of-hearing, ESL, or have auditory processing disorders. Standardized visual cues that may be relied upon have impact for those teams/skaters for at least two reasons:
- They may not be able to hear or understand the verbal cue, but do respond to the hand signal.
- Providing a standardized, non-audio-based signal enhances inclusion for those skaters, but without singling them out, requiring special treatment, or using physical touch that requires consent.
I’d argue that “Stand”, “Done” and “Return to the track” merit standardization on those grounds and for parity with the penalty calls that send the skaters to the box. I don’t feel the same impetus around directing skaters to seats.
To justify a new standard, there must be a need. It is easy to brainstorm scenarios in which a standard could be helpful, but it needs to grow out of a pattern of confusion in real games.
- Who is confused by the current signals?
- What is the impact of that confusion on the game?
It is not enough to imagine a hard of hearing skater being timed by an NSO who is going to do something unusual that fails to communicate to that skater that they need to stand and then are done. Those two people need to exist in games, and the misunderstanding needs to have impact in those games, and those misunderstandings need to be a pattern (rather than just “new people learning” how stuff is done).
The creation of a standard needs to come from an observed problem in worldwide play, rather than a hypothetical.
For example, we standardized Illegal Procedure / Illegal Exit as I, because inconsistent calls led to offense (when a G was used for unintentional but illegal exits) and inconsistency (the same penalties showed up in sanctioned paperwork as P, I, or G). The problem begged the solution – it was not a hypothetical.
1 Like