You are reading a single comment by @Mike[trampsparadise] and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed is a community of predominantly fixed gear and single-speed cyclists in and around London, UK.
This site is supported almost exclusively by donations. Please consider donating a small amount regularly.
![Avatar for Mike[trampsparadise]](https://lfgss.microcosm.app/api/v1/files/234d264db96466e0e7aa35dd06b600d167573076.gif)
@Mike[trampsparadise]
Possible solutions and drawbacks:
Penalize the footdown if it blocks a shot regardless of intention - offense can take a pot shot at any footdown player in front of the goal and hope for the penalty.
Award goal for blocked shot regardless of intention - offense can take a pot shot at any footdown player in front of the goal and hope for the point.
Award goal for blocked shot deemed intenional - Should it be more than one ref needed to make that judgement call?
Award goal for blocked shot deemed intentional if both foot down and shooter are within a certain distance of the goal, say a bike's length (65 inches) - Again should it be more than 1 ref?
Award goal for blocked shot regardless of intention if both foot down and shooter are within a certain distance of the goal, say a bike's length (65 inches) - Could this be enough factors to be a deterrent from pot luck shots at a foot down player?
I'm sure there are more that I've heard, that's all I have for now...