2016 petanque rules changes

Here is a list of the important changes to the rules of petanque made by the FIPJP in 2016. (This is an expanded version of an earlier post.) The 2016 FIPJP rules of petanque are available on the FIPJP web site and the Rules of Petanque web site.
2017-03-17: added a note on the need for a new interpretion of Article 8 and a photograph of an approved folding circle.

  1. Article 10a has been renamed to be Article 11, and all subsequent articles renumbered. So the rules now have 41 articles, rather than 40.
     
  2. Article 3: The weight of the jack must be between 10 and 18 grams. (This means that synthetic jacks, which weigh 22g, are no longer permitted.)
     
  3. Article 5: The opening sentence has been changed from “Petanque is played on all terrains,” to “Petanque is played on all surfaces.”
     
  4. Article 6: Folding circles (cercles pliables) are permitted but only if they are of a model and rigidity approved by the FIPJP. (Folding circles that are approved by the FIPJP will be marked “Agréé FIPJP”.)
  5. Article 6: The throwing circle must be marked before the jack is thrown.
     
  6. Article 6: If a player picks up the circle when there are boules still to be played, the circle is replaced but only the opponents are allowed to play their boules.
     
  7. Article 7: The team winning the toss or the previous end will have ONE and only one attempt to throw a valid jack. If the thrown jack is not valid, the jack is given to the opposing team which then places the jack in any valid location on the designated terrain.
     
  8. Article 7: The throwing circle must now be placed at least two meters from any other active circle.
     
  9. Article 7: During time-limited games only, for a thrown jack, the required minimum distance from a SIDE dead-ball line (not from an END dead-ball line) is reduced to 50cm.
     
  10. Article 8 contains the following sentence: “Before the jack is given to the opposing team for them to place it, both teams must have recognized that the throw was not valid or the Umpire must have decided it to be so. If any team proceeds differently, it loses the right to throw the jack.” The words have not changed, but the second sentence must be given a new interpretation in light of the changes to the rules for the throw of the jack.

     
    If Team A throws a jack that appears to Team B to be long, and Team B picks the jack up before Team A agrees that it actually was long, an umpire may rule that Team B has lost the right to place the jack, and give the jack to Team A, which will then place (not throw) it. It is likely that the second sentence will be revised in the next version of the rules.

  11. Article 10: “Sweeping” (the ground with a foot) in front of a boule to be shot is now specifically mentioned as a violation of the rule against changing the terrain. (This is a clarification of, rather than a change to, the existing rule.)
     
  12. Article 26: Players must stand at least two meters away from an umpire while he is measuring.
     
  13. Article 27: If a player picks up his boules from the playing area while his partners have boules remaining, they will not be allowed to play them.
     
  14. Article 31: It is now no longer the responsibility of each team to check and verify the opposing team’s licenses, boules, qualifications to play in the competition, etc.
     
  15. Article 33: A mene is considered to start when the jack is thrown, regardless of whether or not the throw was valid.
     
  16. Article 35: In order to simplify the penalties, the penalty of disqualification of TWO boules has been eliminated.
     
  17. Article 35: The rules now officially recognize the use of colored signal cards.
     
  18. Article 35: The discussion of warnings has two new provisions. (1) A yellow card for exceeding the time limit will be imposed on ALL of the players of the offending team. (2) If one of these players has already been given a yellow card, that player will be penalised by disqualification of a boule.

     
    These new provisions are poorly written and it will probably be some time before umpires agree on how to interpret them. One likely outcome is this— In the past, umpires usually treated a time-violation as an individual offense. Thus, if player A on Team T exceeded the time limit, the umpire would give A a warning. Later, if player B on Team T exceeded the time limit, the umpire would give B a warning. Now, with these new provisions, it seems likely that if player A on Team T exceeds the time limit, the umpire will give Team T a warning. Later, if player B on Team T exceeds the time limit, the umpire will penalize Team T by disqualifying one of the team’s boules.

  19. Article 39: Correct dress is required of the players, specifically: (a) it is forbidden to play without a top (i.e. with a bare torso) and (b) for safety reasons, the players must wear fully enclosed shoes. In addition, it is forbidden to smoke (or use an e-cigarette) and to use a mobile phone during a game.
     

American players should note that the FPUSA rules have changed in another way.
Following a new policy, the FPUSA has adopted the 2016 international rules “as written” as its national rules.

Adopting the international rules “as written” means doing away with the italicized modifications and addendums added to the FPUSA version over the years. Doing so also means our players will learn to play per the international rules, nothing more, nothing less. [Mike] Pegg’s advice to the FPUSA is to publish the rules as adopted in December 2016 by the FIPJP and separately publish clarification for the more ambiguous and broadly interpreted aspects of the rules or for issues unique to the FPUSA. We agree with Mike and are already in the process of updating the “2015 Interpretation’s” currently in use by the federation.

Previous versions of the FPUSA rules also differed from the FIPJP rules in the wording of the Puddle Rule in Article 9. With the adoption of the FIPJP rules “as written”, that difference no longer exists.


Disqualifying a boule & excluding a player

What does it mean to “disqualify a boule”?

Depending on the context, “disqualifying a boule” can mean one of two quite different things. The key to recognizing the two contexts lies in the expression “disqualification of the boule played or to be played.”

The first context is one where we want to disqualify a boule that has already been played. Suppose, for instance, that a player has already received one warning for a foot fault— for standing on the circle while throwing. Now, the umpire is watching him closely. Again, the player stands on the circle while throwing his boule. The umpire shows an orange card and tells the player that the boule that he has just thrown is disqualified because of his repeated foot fault. In that context, we can point to a specific boule and say “THAT is the boule to be disqualified.” That specific boule is declared dead and removed from the terrain.

The second context is one where we want to disqualify a boule that has not yet been played. Suppose, for instance, that a team has already received one warning for violating the 1-minute rule. Now they are standing around and discussing strategy. Their discussion takes more than one minute. The umpire approaches the team and informs them that one of the team’s boules is now disqualified because of the team’s second infraction of the 1-minute rule. But… which boule should be disqualified? Suppose that the team has 4 unplayed boules. How does the umpire pick out which boule he is going to point to and say “THAT is the boule to be disqualified”?

The answer is that he doesn’t. In this situation, “disqualifying a boule” doesn’t mean picking out a particular boule for disqualification. It means reducing the number of boules that the penalized team (or player) is allowed to throw in the future. As Mike Pegg said during an exchange on “Ask the Umpire”—

If the team has 4 boules and are then advised that 1 boule is disqualified, they then have 3 boules.

They may have 4 unplayed boules in hand, but since one of those boules has been disqualified, they are now allowed to throw only three boules. Which boules they choose to throw is up to them. If the penalized team has no more boules to throw, the number of boules that they can throw in the next mene is reduced.
As Article 35 says—

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.

Excluding a player

After disqualifying a boule, the next level of penalty is the exclusion of a player from the rest of the game. The procedures for excluding a player are similar to the procedures for disqualifying a boule.

On the one hand, the umpire may walk up to a specific player and say, “YOU are excluded from the rest of the game.” On the other hand, the umpire may walk up to the captain of a triples team and say, “For the rest of the game, starting with the next mene, your team is allowed to play with only two players.”

Closeup of a petanque boule disqualified in the previous mene.

Closeup of a petanque boule disqualified in the previous mene.


Putting things back

One of the problems with the FIPJP rules document is that it mixes together in one document material that properly belongs in three different documents— rules of the game, administrative procedures, and guidelines for umpires. In particular, mixing guidelines for umpires with rules of the game blurs the difference between the two. The rules about “putting things back” are a good illustration of this problem.

There are a variety of ways in which a ball (boule or jack) can be moved illegally during a game. When a ball is illegally moved, players then confront the question of whether they should leave it where it is, or put it back in its original location. It is an often-overlooked fact that the rules about relocating an illegally-moved jack are different from the rules about relocating an illegally-moved boule.

Wherever the rules discuss the jack, they say that the jack can be put back in its original location (remis à sa place primitive) only on condition that its original location was marked. In contrast, in the one place where the rules discuss boules (Article 22), they say simply that the boule should be put back (remise en place). This is quite understandable because it is only a jack, not a boule, that is likely to have its original location marked. It is a tradition (a fading tradition, now, I think) for players to mark the location of the jack immediately after it has been thrown, in order to avoid The Pushed-Jack Question.

putting_back_a_petanque_boule

Now, into these relatively clear waters, we will mix a dollop of guidelines for umpires.

Article 12 – Jack masked or displaced … To avoid all disagreement, the players must mark the position of the jack. No claim will be accepted [by an umpire] regarding unmarked boules or an unmarked jack.

Article 22 – Displaced boules … To avoid all disagreement, the players must mark the boules. No claim will be admissible for an unmarked boule, and the umpire will make his decision based only on the locations of the boules on the terrain.

Basically, this boils down to two guidelines: one for umpires and one for players. The guideline for umpires is:

When making a decision concerning an illegally-moved ball (boule or jack) an umpire will ignore any claim by players about the original location of the ball if that original location is not marked, and will make his decision based only on the current locations of the balls on the terrain.

In light of this guideline for umpires, the rules offer the following guideline (or advice, really) for players.

An umpire will ignore any claim that you might make about the original location of a ball if that original location is not marked. Therefore, the only way that you can avoid the certainty that an umpire will rule NOT to return an illegally-moved ball to its original location is (a) always to mark the current location of every ball on the terrain, and (b) always to create new marks and erase old marks whenever any of the balls is moved.

These guidelines generate many questions and a lot of discussion on online petanque forums. This is not the place to get into them. The point that I want to make here is that these are guidelines for umpires, not rules of the game. That means that—

(a) If you are an umpire, and are called on to render a decision in a game, these guidelines are binding on you. You MUST follow them. You, as umpire, can NEVER return an unmarked boule to its original location.

(b) If you are a player in a social game where there is no umpire, these guidelines do not apply to you. For you, they are simply irrelevant. You and your fellow players are free to agree on a location, put the boule back (approximately) in its original location, and carry on with your game.

However, in case (b), remember that the rules for relocating a jack are different from the rules for relocating a boule. Even in a social game, if you want strictly to follow the rules, a jack can be relocated to its original location only if its original location was marked.

Note that if you are playing in an umpired game and a ball is moved illegally, you are NOT required to call in an umpire to render a decision. (An umpire may of course decide to step in uninvited.) When no umpire is present, your game is in essentially the same situation as if you were playing social petanque. You and your fellow players are NOT bound by the umpire’s guidelines. In the case of an illegally-moved boule, if you and your fellow players can agree on a location, you are free to relocate the illegally moved boule and to carry on with the game.

Other posts in Putting Things Back category


Deliberately picking up your own boule

In the 2016 revision of the FIPJP rules, a third paragraph was added to the text of Article 27. The article in its entirety now reads:

Article 27 – Picked-up boules
It is forbidden for players to pick up played boules before the end of the mene.
At the end of a mene, any boule picked up before the agreement of points is dead. No claim is admissible on this subject.
▶If a player picks up his boules from the game terrain while his partners have boules remaining, they will not be allowed to play them.◀

Paragraph 3 was a good idea. Before it was added, what the article implicitly said was——

If a player (deliberately) picks up one of his own boules, the boule is dead and the player receives (only) a warning.

The idea that a player would want deliberately to remove one of his own boules might seem strange. But it isn’t, really. Suppose, for instance, that you are playing on team B when one of the following situations arises.

  1. Team A has thrown all of their boules, while your team still has four boules to play. The front is completely open, just waiting for you to point those four boules in and score four points, EXCEPT… one of your own boules, B1, is in the way. It is sitting exactly on the ideal donnée for your pointing throws. It is a great blocking boule, but now it is blocking you rather than the opponents.
     
  2. Your team has one point one the ground. If you could shoot away opposing boule A1, your team could score four points. But boule B1, one of your own boules, is right behind A1, kissing it. You’re familiar with Newton’s cradle and you know the physics of this kind of situation. If you shoot A1, B1 will go flying and A1 will hardly move.

newtons_cradle_animation_book_2
newtonian_boules

In both of these situations (and there are others like them) it would be to your advantage if you could pick up your own boule and remove it. In some circumstances, it might be worth doing even if you got a warning from the umpire for doing it. In social games played without an umpire, you wouldn’t even get a warning. Soon, perhaps, the idea would spread that picking up one of your own boules was a recognized and acceptable part of the game.

The addition of paragraph 3 to the text of Article 27 fixes that. Don’t think of paragraph 3 as specifying a punishment for picking up your own boule. Rather, think of it as eliminating the possibility of gaining any advantage at all from deliberately picking up one of your own boules.


Note that if a player deliberately picks up one of his own team’s boules, the rules in in Article 22– which cover boules that are accidentally picked up— do not apply.(1) Even if the boule’s original location was marked, if the boule was deliberately picked up it may not be put back in its original location.


Paragraph 3, like many other rules, has the potential to cause problems for umpires. Although paragraph 3 describes a situation in which a player “picks up” his boule from the game terrain, the word “picks up” (enlevée) is used loosely, and it covers such deliberate actions as kicking a boule off of the terrain, or even just kicking it away from the head.

Consider, for instance, our first example. B1, one of team B’s own boules, has become a nasty blocking boule for team B. Ben, the captain of team B, walks up to the boule to inspect the situation. He sees a divot not far from the boule. He starts using one foot to scrape dirt toward the divot when— suddenly— he loses his balance. Swinging arms and legs wildly in an attempt to regain his balance, he accidentally kicks B1, knocking it a meter away.

Now the umpire has a problem. He must decide whether Ben’s action was or was not a genuine accident. If it was an accident, B1 stays where Ben kicked it (because its location wasn’t marked). But if Ben deliberately moved B1 the boule is dead, and so are all of team B’s remaining unplayed boules.

Rules about players doing something accidentally (or deliberately) inevitably raise the old, old question— “He did it. But in this particular case how can we know whether he did it accidentally or deliberately?” That’s the problem that this rule potentially poses for umpires.


Footnotes
(1) Article 22 If a stationary boule is displaced by the wind or slope of the ground, for example, it is put back [in its original location]. The same applies to any boule accidentally displaced by a player, an umpire, a spectator, an animal, or any moving object.


This post is an excerpt from the next edition of A Guide to the Rules of Petanque, now in preparation.


When does a mene begin and end?

Players often have questions about when a mene begins and ends.

Actually, the rules don’t contain the concept (or at least, not a substantive concept) of a mene ending. It is precisely because the rules say nothing on this topic that there are questions and disagreements about when a mene ends. International umpire Mike Pegg says that a mene ends when the last boule is thrown. The FPUSA rules interpretations say that a mene ends when the points have been agreed.

What is important in the rules is not when a mene ends but when it begins. When a mene begins is important in two different situations, and the rules for when a mene begins may be different for those two situations.

A late-arriving player
The first situation is when a late-arriving player arrives and is ready to join the game. In this situation the player must wait until the start of the next mene before joining the game (see Article 33). Note that the rules about when a mene begins changed with the 2016 revision of the rules. In earlier versions of the rules, a mene was considered to begin with the successful throw of the jack. In the 2016 version of the rules, Article 33 says

A mene is considered to have started when the jack has been thrown regardless of the validity of the throw.


The time-limit signal is announced
The second situation is when the time-limit signal is announced (usually by the sound of a whistle or bell) in a time-limited game. Typically when the time-limit is announced players may finish the current mene and then (depending on the competition rules) play one or two additional menes.

Competition rules often include rules (for that particular competition, for the purposes of working within time-limits) about when a mene is considered to begin. Possible rules for the second and subsequent menes include—

  1. A mene begins when the jack has been thrown (successfully or not).
  2. A mene begins when the jack has been successfully placed.
  3. A mene begins when the first boule of the mene has been thrown.
  4. A mene begins after the last boule of the previous mene has been thrown.
  5. A mene begins after the points have been agreed at the end of the previous mene.

For time-limited games during Eurocup tournaments, the CEP uses option #5.

A new end will be considered as started as soon as the result of the previous end is known.

So does the 2015 version of the FPUSA rules interpretations.

A new end will be considered as started as soon as the result of the previous end is known.

The Petanque New Zealand umpire’s guide uses option #4. Note that the opening paragraph in this quotation is written as if it is discussing a question about when a mene ends, but the wording of the first bullet point makes it clear that the discussion is really about when a mene begins.

When the time signal is sounded, players decide if all boules of the end have been played and have come to a stop. If so, that end has finished (regardless of measuring and deciding points). It is the most objective point at which to make a decision re the end of an end, as it does not allow players to ‘play for time’ through measuring, deciding points, calling the umpire etc. So when the time signal is sounded…

  • If the last boule of the end has been played and come to a stop, you have officially started the new end and are therefore able to play that end, plus the tournament’s official ends.
  • If the last boule of the end has NOT been played or NOT stopped, you finish the end and then play the tournament’s official ends.

The PNZ umpire’s guide is clear that this rule is NOT to be used for determining when a late-arriving player may join the game.

This rule applies only in timed games to determine how many ends remain to be played after the time signal is sounded. It is not used for any other purpose.


Players sometimes say “the jack must be thrown within a minute after the end of the previous mene.” But that is not what the rules say. What the actual rule, in Article 21, says is–

Once the jack is thrown, each player has the maximum duration of one minute to play his boule. This short period of time starts from the moment that the previously played boule or jack stops or, if it is necessary to measure a point, from the moment the latter [the measurement] has been accomplished. … The same requirements apply to the throwing of the jack.

The rules do NOT say that that the jack must be thrown within a minute after the end of the previous mene. They say that that the jack must be thrown within a minute after the last boule thrown in the previous mene has come to rest (or, if measurement was necessary to determine which team holds the point, after the completion of measurement). There is no mention of “the end of the previous mene”.

Rather unrealistically, the rules assume that the agreement of points occurs instantaneously after the last boule was thrown (or measurements were completed). This isn’t a problem because, during actual play, time spent during the agreement of points is treated as time spent in measuring.


There are a few places where the expression “the end of the mene” does occur in the rules. One place is in Article 27.

Article 27 – Picked-up Boules
It is forbidden for players to pick up played boules before the end of the mene. At the end of a mene, any boule picked up before the agreement of points is dead.

Here, use of the expression “the end of the mene” helps make the assumed context of the rule clearer but doesn’t affect the substance of the rule itself. You could eliminate all references to “the end of the mene” without changing the rule.

Article 27 – Picked-up Boules
It is forbidden for players to pick up played boules before the agreement of points. Any boule picked up before the agreement of points is dead.

The other place where you can find the expression “the end of the mene” is in Article 13—

Article 13 – Jack displaced into another game
If, during a mene, the jack is displaced onto another game terrain… the players using this jack will wait for the end of the mene that was started by the players on the other game terrain, before finishing their own mene.

Here, “waiting for the end of the mene” is an important part of the rule, but the expression is not being used as a technical term. It simply means waiting for one game to finish using a patch of ground so that the other game can use it without the two games interfering with each other.


This post is an excerpt from the next edition of A Guide to the Rules of Petanque, now in preparation.


Sweeping

sweeping

Questions about what a player is or is not permitted to do in order to fill a hole became more complicated with the release of the 2016 version of the rules. In the previous (2010) version of the rules, the last sentence of Article 10 was—

For non-observation of the rules above, the players incur the penalties outlined in Article 34 “Discipline”.

In the new (2016) version of the rules, the last sentence of Article 10 became this. Note that the underlining is mine.

For not complying with this rule, especially in the case of sweeping in front of a boule to be shot, the offending player incurs the penalties specified in Article 35.

What the new rule says, basically, is that starting January 1, 2017, in FIPJP sanctioned competitions, “sweeping” in front of a boule to be shot will be treated as an infraction of the rules and punished in some unspecified way. The problem with this new rule is that— like so many other rules—it uses a technical term without defining it. What is “sweeping”?

Sweeping in front of a boule to be shot

To understand what “sweeping in front of a boule to be shot” means, it helps to know a little bit about the history of Article 10.

Between 1964 and 2008, Article 10 specified that players could fill only the hole that had been made by the boule that had just been played. The rule said, in effect, that players got only one opportunity to fix a divot— immediately after the divot had been created. If they didn’t fix the divot then, the divot had to remain in the terrain, unfilled, for the remainder of the game. The effect of the rule, not surprisingly, was to condition players to fill every divot immediately after it had been created. If you watch Youtube videos of games played before 2008 you can see it clearly. As soon as a boule is thrown and it is determined which team is to play next, one of the players of that team goes to the divot and smooths it out.

Under these conditions, it makes no difference what your team is planning to do next. Regardless of whether you are going to shoot or point, your team always fixes the divot before throwing its next boule. Usually the team’s pointer is the most compulsive about filling the divot. He develops a habit, almost a compulsion. He walks to the middle of the terrain, studies the ground, and almost as if in a trance he sweeps a foot across the terrain to eradicate a divot. He does this even if the divot is so small that it is almost invisible. Even if no divot is visible, he sweeps the area with a foot, just to be sure that the terrain is level. And the umpires are OK with that. They probably think that almost always there is some kind of divot. And, really, the difference between a small divot and an imaginary divot is so small that it’s not worth making a fuss about.

And that’s the way the game was played for more than 40 years.

In 2008, Article 10 changes, and that changes everything. Now players can fill a divot regardless of whether it was made by the last boule played. If you are a pointer and you see a divot near your donnée, you can fill it without worrying about whether it was created by the last boule played.

With time, players begin to regard filling a divot as something you do in preparation for the next throw rather than something you do as an automatic response to the last throw. As the general attitude toward divot-fixing changes, younger players become increasingly critical of players who fill divots when there is no immediate and obvious need to do so. They are especially critical of players who fill a divot and then go on to shoot. Questions start to be asked. If you’re planning to shoot, and not point, why should you fill a divot? Is it even legal to fill a divot if you are planning to shoot? Was there really a divot there, or were you just smoothing out the terrain? Even if there was a divot, weren’t you sweeping your foot much wider than was needed just to fill the hole?

Then things start to happen. In 2015, in some French competitions, umpires experiment with enforcing an “if you’re going to shoot you can’t fill a divot” rule. And in 2016 the FIPJP’s international rules acquire a new clause that identifies “sweeping in front of a boule to be shot” as a punishable infraction of the rules.

What is “sweeping”?

One way of defining “sweeping” might be something like —moving around the dirt of the terrain with a sweeping motion of the leg and foot. But of course that captures only the physical motion. The crucial point is that, while it is legal to fill a divot, it is illegal to make any change to the terrain that goes beyond filling a divot— that goes beyond the minimum necessary to fill a divot.

So one definition of sweeping might be— pretending to fill a divot but moving around more of the dirt on the terrain than is actually needed to fill the divot. Another definition might be— smoothing out an area of the terrain under the pretense of filling a divot. Or we can say— “sweeping” is (a) using a sweeping motion of leg and foot (b) while pretending to be filling a divot (c) in order to change the terrain in an illegal way. Sweeping is therefore always illegal, regardless of where it is done and what you intend to do next. And in the expression “sweeping in front of a boule to be shot”, the only operative word is “sweeping”.

Note that the addition of the clause “especially in the case of sweeping in front of a boule to be shot” makes absolutely no change to the rules. Sweeping—making illegal changes to the terrain under the pretense of filling a divot—has always been illegal. But, you ask, if it changes nothing, why was it added?

We’ve said elsewhere that one of the problems with the FIPJP rules is that they are a mixture of game rules and umpire’s guidelines. The clause is not a game rule; it is an umpire’s guideline. Adding it to the rules doesn’t change the rules of the game. It changes the enforcement policy. Basically, the new clause is a signal to FIPJP-certified umpires everywhere that starting on January 1, 2017 they are expected to enforce the rules against sweeping. The days when umpires turned a blind eye toward compulsive sweeping and divot filling are over.

At least that’s the theory.

Changes in enforcement policy are always difficult, and this change will be especially difficult. Deciding how much sweeping is acceptable for divot-fixing and how much is too much will always be a judgment call. Umpires will be reluctant to crack down on players based only on their own subjective judgments.

And players… Will they start asking umpires to come onto the terrain to verify that there genuinely is a divot to be filled, and that the player is filling it in an acceptable way? Will players start requesting that umpires fill the divots, to forestall any possible charge of sweeping?

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out over the next few years.