2016 rules – Article 35’s new rule about exceeding the 1-minute rule

Revised: 2021-05-04
When the FIPJP released a new version of the rules in December 2016, umpires and players discovered that two sentences (marked [a] and [b], below) had been inserted into Article 35.

For non-observation of the rules of the game the players incur the following penalties:
1) A warning, which is indicated officially by the showing by the umpire of a yellow card to the player at fault.
[a] However, a yellow card for exceeding the time limit is imposed on all the players of the offending team. [b] If one of these players has already been given a yellow card, he will be penalized by disqualification of a boule during the mene in progress or for the following mene if he has no more boules to play.
 

These two sentences caused an immense amount of confusion among players and umpires. In response, there were a number of attempts to clarify the two new sentences. Strangely enough, these attempts usually tried to relieve the confusion by introducing new, unfamiliar, and undefined terminology. On “Ask the Umpire”, Mike Pegg responded to questions with talk of “team” infractions, “team” penalties, and “team” yellow cards. The French National Umpires Committee issued memo in which it tried to alleviate the confusion with talk of “collective” infractions, “collective” penalties, and “collective” yellow cards.

These efforts were completely misguided. In petanque, there are no “collective” offenses or “team” penalties. There are only individual offenses and penalties. Article 35, for example, begins by saying that a warning is indicated “by the umpire showing a yellow card to the player at fault.” The two new sentences were added to the rules in 2016. Before that time—

  • If a player lingered too long in the circle and violated the 1-minute rule, that player would have been the player at fault, and would have been given a warning (yellow card).
     
  • If all three members of a team spent too much time discussing strategy together, each of the three players would have been at fault, and each would receive his own, individual warning (yellow card). Three yellow cards, total.

What the new sentences in Article 35 did was to add a new rule. (Note that this new rule is triggered only by a team’s first infraction of the 1-minute rule.)

  • The first time that any member of a team violates the 1-minute rule, the umpire will give an individual penalty to the player at fault. IN ADDITION the umpire will give an individual penalty to each of his team-mates, regardless of whether or not those team-mates were at fault in creating the violation.

Basically the new rule in Article 35 is this—

  • The first time that any player of a team violates the 1-minute rule, the umpire must penalize all members of the team— guilty and innocent alike.

As I’ve said, there are no “team” or “collective” penalties in petanque. When people use expressions such as “team yellow card” or “collective yellow card”, they are referring to a situation in which an umpire gives an individual yellow card to each of the members of a team, even though at least one member of the team was completely innocent of any wrong-doing.

When the new rule appeared, it provoked many questions about what effect it would have on the vague tradition of penalty escalation— the idea that repeated offenses should be punished with increasingly severe penalties. The unwritten rule-of-thumb for umpires is— First offense gets a warning; second offense gets a disqualified boule. So when the new rule was published, the question that was on the minds of many players was— What effects does the new rule have on the ways that penalties are escalated?

The answer is— None. Nada. Zip. All of the traditional rules of penalty escalation still operate the same way as they always have, unchanged. The first time that a player exceeds the time limit, the umpire gives each member of his team a yellow card; EXCEPT THAT the umpire gives an orange card to each player that already has a yellow card (for any offense); EXCEPT THAT the umpire gives a red card to any player that already has an orange card. Thereafter, if a player breaks a rule, the umpire gives him a yellow card; EXCEPT THAT if the player already has a yellow card, the umpire gives him an orange card; etc. etc.

In January 2017, the French National Umpires Committee released a memo that confirmed that the traditional rules of petanque escalation remain unchanged. (You can find the CNA’s memo HERE.) The memo lists several case descriptions and provides the approved decision in each case.

=======================================================
The following examples are for a team composed of three players A, B and C.
The term “individual infraction” means any infraction of the rules other than an infraction of the time-limit rule.

Case 1
No player has received a warning for any infraction of the rules.
Player A exceeds the time limit.
DECISION
The umpire gives a warning to each player: A, B, and C.

Case 2
Each of the players has been given a warning for exceeding the time limit.
Player A commits an individual infraction.
DECISION
The umpire disqualifies one of player A’s boules.

Case 3
Each of the players has been given a warning for exceeding the time limit.
Player A exceeds the time.
DECISION
The umpire disqualifies one of player A’s boules.

Case 4
Player C commits an infraction of a rule other than the time-limit rule.
Player B exceeds the time.
DECISION
The umpire gives a warning to players A and B.
The umpire disqualifies one of player C’s boules.

Case 5
Player A commits an individual infraction.
Player B commits an individual infraction.
Player C exceeds the time.
DECISION
The umpire disqualifies one of player A’s boules.
The umpire disqualifies one of player B’s boules.
The umpire gives a warning to player C.

Case 6
Player A commits an individual infraction.
Player B commits an individual infraction.
Player C commits an individual infraction.
Player A exceeds the time.
DECISION
The umpire disqualifies one of player A’s boules.
The umpire disqualifies one of player B’s boules.
The umpire disqualifies one of player C’s boules.
=======================================================
Case 7
Each of the players has been given a warning for exceeding the time limit.
The team exceeds the time limit for a second time, by conferring among themselves as a group for more than a minute.
DECISION
The umpire disqualifies one of the team’s boules.
=======================================================

Actually, there are only 6 cases on the CNA’s list— Case 7 is my own addition. It is remarkable that Case 7 is not on the CNA’s list, because it is the most controversial case of all.

In Case 7, all three players are what the CNA calls “direct authors” of the second infraction— each player personally participates in the act that breaks the rule. In my opinion, in Case 7 an umpire who honestly tries to follow the letter of the law will disqualify one boule for each of the offending players— three boules in total. But that might seem like a “team penalty” for a second infraction of the 1-minute rule, which Article 35 does NOT support. So an umpire won’t do that; he will disqualify just one of the team’s boules (see international umpire Mike Pegg’s ruling HERE). At this point, players will of course ask: “Which boule does the umpire disqualify?” For the answer to that question, see our post on What does it mean to “disqualify a boule”?

Three players exceeding the time limit as they discuss what to do next


Post a comment, or send us a message

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.