Field Hockey Rules: What’s Wrong with Hockey?

Compare the Rule and Rule Guidance with ‘practice’ of field hockey umpires as seen on the video clips.

Rule 9.11.  Ball/body contact Rule

Rule 9.11
Field players must not stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their body.

It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player. The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball or if they position themselves with the intention of stopping
the ball in this way.

It is not an offence if the ball hits the hand holding the stick but would otherwise have hit the stick.

Suggestions.

Restore the word ‘intentionally’ to the Rule and alter the Rule Guidance :-

Field players must not intentionally play the ball with any part of their body.

Play should continue when there is an unintentional ball/body contact unless there has been play dangerous to the player hit or an  injury sufficient to justify stoppage.

.

Rule 9.9. Intentionally lifted hit

Rule 9.9   Players must not intentionally raise the ball from a hit except for a shot at goal.

A raised hit must be judged explicitly on whether or not it is raised intentionally. It is not an offence to raise the ball unintentionally from a hit, including a free hit, anywhere on the field unless it is dangerous.

(Only the Rule Guidance related to the lifting of a hit has been reproduced above).

The way in which intention to raise the ball with a hit  is ‘read’ contrasts sharply with the reading of intention in the ball/body contact situation (Rule 9.11) where intentional contact seems to be assumed.

The UMB conflicts with the Rules of Hockey – the UMB advising “forget lifted, think danger “, which must mean the intention to lift the ball can also be ‘forgotten’ – while the Rules tell us that the raised hit must be judged explicitly on intention to lift the ball (and of course on danger also).

  I believe the way to put this right is to abandon any attempt to read intention in the raising of the ball with a hit and then apply objective criteria to judge ‘dangerous’.

Suggestions.

All raising of the ball directly off the stick of a striker directly into the circle should be prohibited in all phases of play. Leeway could be given for surface conditions but the ball should travel along the ground and not lift off it more than the diameter of the ball at any time.

The deflection of the ball into the opposing circle off the stick of an attacker should be restricted to knee height at any point in the flight of the ball.

In the outfield raising of the ball with a hit should be permitted but restricted in two ways. 1) Height 2) Dangerous play. As at present no ball should be raised at another player within 5m at above knee height. Hits raised towards open areas should be restricted to elbow height. Any ball hit to above elbow height should be penalised as dangerous or as time-wasting.

The ban on playing the ball into the circle from a free in the opposing 23m area should be withdrawn, the requirement to play the ball along the ground (and, as now, from a position at least 5m from the circle) together with prohibition of high deflections into the circle should provide a sufficient alternative safeguard against dangerous play.

Rule 9.12  Obstruction

Rule 9.12  Players must not obstruct an opponent who is attempting to play the ball.

Players obstruct if they :

– back into an opponent
– physically interfere with the stick or body of an opponent
– shield the ball from a legitimate tackle with their stick or any part of their body.

A stationary player receiving the ball is permitted to face in any direction.

A player with the ball is permitted to move off with it in any direction except bodily into an opponent or into a position between the ball and an opponent who is within playing distance of the ball and attempting to play it.

A player who runs in front of or blocks an opponent to stop them legitimately playing or attempting to play the ball is obstructing (this is third party or shadow obstruction). This also applies if an attacker runs across or blocks defenders (including the goalkeeper or player with goalkeeping privileges) when a penalty corner is being taken.

What determines Conduct of Play in a hockey match is the Obstruction Rule together with the following three Rules.

Rule 9.3    Players must not touch, handle or interfere with other players or their sticks or clothing.

Rule 9.4    Players must not intimidate or impede another player.

Rule 9.8    Players must not play the ball dangerously or in a way which leads to dangerous play.

These four Rules make hockey a unique competitive team ball sport and what can be done to conserve them must be done. Unfortunately all four are ‘under attack’. There was no shortage of video clips to choose from to illustrate that the Obstruction Rule is being largely ignored and that “Ignorance is strength” because this is what “everybody” is doing.

.

Lest anyone have the idea that I am opposed to players turning with the ball I need to say that the freedom to turn away from an opponent, as well as the facility to receive the ball without fear of barging from behind, has been the best tactical development in hockey in the past twenty years. BUT  correct timing, distance and direction are vital in turning AWAY from an opponent. Properly done such play is flowing and spectacular.

What we do not need in the game is turning INTO or across opponents and slow moving or stationary blocking of their access to the ball.

Prior to the “clarification and simplification” of the Rules in the restructured rulebook of 2004 part of the Advice to Umpires about obstruction was as follows:

2003

Umpires should be aware of players who are in possession of the
ball who:
• back into an opponent;
• turn and try to push past an opponent;
• shield the ball with body, leg or stick and stand still
when under pressure;
• drag the ball near their back foot when moving down
the side-line or along the back-line;
• shield the ball with the stick to prevent a legitimate
tackle.

All simple and easy to understand instructions and I think clearer than the present rulebook on specific actions which are commonly not penalised in current hockey, despite there being no change in interpretation of this Rule announced by the FIH since 1993.

Rule 9.8  Dangerously played Ball

Players must not play the ball dangerously or in a way which leads to dangerous play.

A ball is considered dangerous when it causes legitimate evasive action by players.

The penalty is awarded where the action causing the danger took place.

According to the television commentator of this 2010 World Cup game (perhaps not surprisingly, he had probably not read the Rules of Hockey) but also, astonishingly, according to the umpire, there is no such thing as a dangerous shot which is clearly at the goal.

It is a disgrace that players have to put up with this kind of nonsense and have the ignorant call them petulant for what mild protest is shown. This invention of ‘Rule’ explains the many examples of shooting by attackers that are far more dangerous than the example above (see post Dangerous Shot on goal) and cause serious injuries to defenders with no penalty imposed on those responsible; quite the contrary it is defenders who are penalised for ‘being in the way’ – even if they take or try to take evasive action to avoid injury. Following the ‘logic’ of “Clear shot at goal” (meaning “Clearly an ‘on target’ shot at the goal” rather than a ‘clear shot‘ that is with no-one but the goalkeeper between the shooter and the goal) the following clip does not show an example of a dangerously played ball – but that cannot be so, common sense forbids such a conclusion.

Could it be that the umpire in the China v Spain game misunderstood what was said in a verbal briefing? It is to be hoped that that is the case, but it seems unlikely in view of the number of other similar instances which go ‘unnoticed’. This incident, below, resulted in a corner; even though the defender is clearly within 5m of the ball when it is struck and the ball is considerably above knee height as he takes evasive action. Dangerous ‘with bells on’, evasive action and too high and too close to be other than certainly dangerous. Suicide Runner or Murderous Shooter?

.
.
There are other questions that might occur to anyone familiar with the Rules of Hockey after listening to the commentary on this clip, for example 1) “Why was an obviously unintentional foot contact penalised at all – especially when it was intentionally forced ?” (such forcing was still illegal at the time of the game in 2010)  and

2) “Why would a ball propelled at a defender’s face result in a penalty stroke if it was ‘on target’ , but result in penalty against the shooter for dangerous play if not ‘on target’ ? 

It is not an offence to miss the target when attempting to score a goal and the ball  endangered the defender ‘on target’ or not.  The second question is obviously only a more extreme example of the first one.

It is easy to see how the non-existent “obligation on a defender to defend the feet from the ball” could have ‘evolved’ out of the prohibition on intentionally playing the ball with the foot, but it should not happen, the two things are entirely different concepts. Failing to prevent an opponent forcing a foot/ball contact is not the same as intentionally playing the ball with the foot and the first is certainly not an offence.
.

All the facts these TV commentators have at their fingertips but they don’t know the trivia – like the Rules of the game. When one of them mis-said a player’s name someone immediately corrected him via his ear-phones, but ‘mangling’ the Rules does not seem to matter.

In the incident below, unless the raising of the ball into the tackler was considered dangerous, there was no offence by either player and play should have continued. Instead umpires are acting as if ‘gained benefit’ can still be applied to create an offence from an unintentional breach of Rule, and then compounding that by awarding the player who raised the ball the benefit of a free-pass (or in the attacked circle a penalty corner). A double standard is being applied to ‘unintentional’ – so that ball/body contact is seen as an offence, when the action that caused (or forced) it, is not. It would be understandable if this was the other was about – that is in line with the declared ‘Emphasis on safety’. The present application makes no sense at all.
.

Look for a foot find a foot … or any other part of the body. The principle commentator made more than a dozen references during the game to a player in possession of the ball deliberately ‘looking for’ and  ‘finding’ a foot, as if this practice was a normal and acceptable part of the game. He also expected the player so hit with the ball to be penalised – brainwashing or brain washed? The guest commentator remarked the penalty was “a bit unfair” – an understatement.

.

22nd May 2012

Posted on an Internet forum this week by an umpire :-

Despite what some would have you believe, there are no major conflicts between the rule book, how that is interpreted by FIH umpires and how the FIH wants the game blown.

Ah but there are, that is what is wrong with hockey. To paraphrase Groucho Marx (Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?). Who are you going to believe, that umpire or your own eyes?
.
Link to Index of Rules  http://wp.me/p3tNmd-3

Field Hockey Rules: ‘Gains benefit’ – deletion and contradiction

Edited 6th February 2013.

This is a story about corruption, dark intrigue  and world domination via field hockey……not really, that is just an echo from something silly that I read. This is the tale of how the clause relating to the gaining of a benefit from an unintentional body/ball contact came to be deleted from the Rules of Hockey- Rule 9.11 – but the text remaining in the Guidance to that Rule being interpreted  as if the deletion had not taken place – it’s a sad story.

To begin this convoluted tale we need to look at the relevant Rule and Rule Guidance in the Rules of Hockey in 2006 – the year in which “unless that player or their team benefits from this” last appeared in a rulebook. Following a change of page format and a major rewrite in 2004, the ball/body contact Rule looked rather ‘spartan’ compared to previous versions.

Rules of Hockey 2006
9.10 Field players must not stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their body.

It is not an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player, unless that player or their team benefits from this.

No offence is committed if the ball hits the hand holding the stick but would otherwise have hit the stick.

At the time the Rules of Hockey were revised and printed annually but as there was only one minor change to the Rules of Hockey in 2006 (relating to the curve in a stick) the FIH decided to issue a single page supplement, to be added to the 2005 edition, and not a completely new rulebook.

It is necessary here to ‘side-track’ a little and bring in ‘intentionally’, which in various forms also disappeared and reappeared in the Rules of Hockey in period 2003 -2007. In 2007 the wording of the ball/body contact Rule was revised by the HRB, to reintroduce ‘intention’ in Guidance, reference to intention having been removed from the Rule in 2004. Previously this was the ball/body contact Rule.

Rules of Hockey 2003
Rule 13.1.2 Use of body, hands, feet by players other than goalkeepers.
Players shall not:-
a. stop or catch the ball with the hand
There is nothing to prevent players using their hands to protect themselves from dangerously raised balls.

b.  intentionally stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of  their bodies.

It is not automatically an offence if the ball hits the foot or body of a player. On many
occasions when a ball hits the foot or body of a player an offence will not have taken place and play should continue.
It is only an offence if the ball hits the foot or body of a player and that player:
• moved intentionally into the path of the ball, or
• made no effort to avoid being hit, or
• was positioned with the clear intention to stop the ball with the foot or body, or
• gains benefit.

The 2003 version of the Rule was not perfect but nonetheless quite good (I had – and still have – reservations about “was positioned with the clear intention to stop the ball with the foot or body”   unless the ‘positioned’ player is within playing distance of the ball and obviously not intending to use the stick. We have ‘crack-pots’ who declare that a defender positioned on the goal-line intends to use the body if the ball is missed with the stick – but that’s another story.).  The ‘fly in the ointment’ was  It is only an offence if the ball hits the foot or body of a player and that player gains benefit which by 2005 had been change to It is not an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player, unless that player or their team benefits from this. The ‘gains benefit clause’, (I have underlined) as it became known, became a problem because many umpires insisted on interpreting any ball/body contact, particularly any foot/ball contact, no matter how caused, as of benefit to the team of the player hit (or were told to do so). This was easy to umpire and consistent, but it turned the intent of the Rule ‘on its head’. The ‘gained benefit’ clause effectively always ‘trumped’ – It is not automatically an offence if the ball hits the foot or body of a player – body ball contact was assumed always to be ‘of benefit’ and so an offence, and penalised unless opponents could play on with advantage.

In 2007 the HRB presumably in an attempt to clarify or reassert the intent of the Rule Guidance and redress the damage done by removing the word ‘intentionally‘ from the Rule,  removed the ‘gains benefit’ clause – so that what then became Rule 9.11 read:-

Rules of Hockey 2007/8
9.11. Field players must not stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their body.

It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot,hand or body of a field player. The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball or if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way.

It is not an offence if the ball hits the hand holding the stick but would otherwise have hit the stick.”

So now reference to intention was restored (and expanded), but in Rule Guidance not the Rule, and reference to the gaining of an advantage or benefit from a ball/body contact that was not made voluntarily was removed.

Then something quite extraordinary happened. It was communicated to the public on the FIH website as follows:-

Rules of Hockey 2007
Official FIH explanation concerning ‘rule 9.11’
07 Feb 2007 13:07
With the turn of the year, many more nations are now using the 2007/8 Rules of Hockey. The FIH is always keen to receive feedback on any rules changes or, for that matter, any existing rules. We receive this through various informal networks but also scan the web based discussion forums regularly.

An issue we have picked up through a few national associations, is uncertainty about rule 9.11: “field players must not stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their body”.

Rule 9.11 of the Rules of Hockey 2007/8 states:

“Field players must not stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their body.
It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player. The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball or if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way. It is not an offence if the ball hits the hand holding the stick but would otherwise have hit the stick.”

Compared to the 2005/6 Rules, the note in italics has been changed in an endeavour to reinforce the intended interpretation of this rule. The following advice has been produced to clarify this interpretation so that the rule is applied consistently.

The 2005/6 Rules indicated that it was not an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player “unless that player or their team benefits from this”. However, as with other rules, this continues to be an offence if benefit is gained. Rule 9.11 should therefore continue to be applied taking into account any benefit gained by the player or their team.

This strange ‘explanation’ restored the version of the Guidance which existed prior to 2005 and reversed the deletion of the ‘gains benefit’ clause.

Why is what happened strange and extraordinary ? Because it was unconstitutional, contravening all the previous statements by the FIH Executive and the FIH Hockey Rules Board concerning the established procedure for amending Rule and directly challenged the sole authority of the HRB for the amendment of the Rules of Hockey – and because the gains benefit clause referred to was not in the Rules of Hockey 2007.

A month after the issue of the Rules of Hockey for 2007/8 and before there was time for any meaningful trial of the game sans the ‘gains benefit’ clause, we are informed. After much discussion especially with input from Peter von Reth(as Hockey Rules Board member and Chairman of the Umpiring Committee) and after agreement by Hockey Rules Board Chairman Wolfgang Rommel, the following guidance note has been prepared.
The Chair of the HRB is an individual not himself the FIH Hockey Rules Board any more than Peter von Reth was – or any more than he as an individual was the the whole of  FIH Umpiring Committee -  and there was no indication that the announced reversal had been approved by the FIH Executive.

The procedure for amending the Rules of Hockey is easy enough to find on the FIH website under FAQ in the Rules section.    http://www.fih.ch/en/sport/rules/faq   What was done with the announcement on 7th February 2007  flouted every point of that procedure, particularly those mentioned in Q/A  18 – 20.

Just as bad was the inane justification for the interpretation that was presented as the “Official FIH explanation concerning ‘rule 9.11’”. The 2005/6 Rules indicated that it was not an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player “unless that player or their team benefits from this”. However, as with other rules, this continues to be an offence if benefit is gained.

That  pretends that the deletion of “unless that player or their team benefits from this“. by the HRB after 2006 should be interpreted as if the words remained in the Rule Guidance. How could  this have been, when they clearly did not ? It all seems to hang on the word ‘is‘ which was emphasized in bold text. This  this continues to be an offence if benefit is gained. contrasted with  not an offence unless that player or their team benefits from this there is a change of syntax but I can’t see a change in meaning between these statements.

The Hockey Rules Board, not surprisingly, were not it seems impressed by the circumvention of an amendment to the wording of the Rule Guidance they had authorised only a month previously, but no immediate action was taken, so this ‘Official explanation ‘ was accepted as applying to the Rules of Hockey 2007-9. Subsequent Committee meetings of the Members of the HRB however declined to ratify the unconstitutional ‘consultation’ with their Chairman in Feb 2007.

Rules of Hockey 2009-11 the clause “unless that player or their team benefits from this” was not restored to the embedded Rule Guidance

Rules of Hockey 2011-13  the clause “unless that player or their team benefits from this” was again not restored to the embedded Rule Guidance

Rules of Hockey 2013 -15  the clause “unless that player or their team benefits from this”  has not been restored to the embedded Rule Guidance.

(I labour the time-span intentionally – six years compared with three weeks)

The ‘gains benefit’ clause of the body/ball contact Rule was and is therefore defunct following the expiration of  2007-9 Rules of Hockey and until such time the FIH Rules Committee (the renamed HRB) choose to restore it – if they do. Naturally the Umpiring Committee did not and do not accept this, and umpires are still being coached as if the ‘gains benefit’ clause is and always has remained part of the text of Rule 9.11.

There should of course be a ‘gained unfair benefit’ clause – both parties are at fault – but it should be an amended version, not the ‘catch all’ previously given. There is a need for penalty when a goal is directly prevented with a ball/body contact by a defending field-player and there has been no offence by a member of the the attacking team. There is also a case for calling an offence when there is an accidental body/ball contact by a player in possession of the ball in the opponent’s circle, when possession is retained or some other benefit, such as a pass to a team-mate, accrues, but no more than that is required.

 

  Link to Index of Rules http://wp.me/p3tNmd-3

 

Field Hockey Rules: Back- door ‘Rules’ and the Umpire Manager’s Briefing for Umpires

Edited 28th January 2013.

The introduction of the field hockey self pass threw up some issues during the experimental stage which were coped with on the spot during the Experiment Period by the introduction of what was seen to be a ‘common sense interpretation’ – an ‘interpretation’ which restricted the actions of any opponent who was with 5m of the ball when a self pass was taken.

I strongly disagree that such restrictions are an appropriate way of dealing with retreating defenders ‘caught’ within 5m of the ball when a self-pass is taken – but I have written about that elsewhere in this blog – this article is about the use by umpires of the advice given in the Umpire Manager’s Briefings for Umpires at FIH Tournaments (i.e International level hockey) to introduce Rule Guidance and even new Rule to the Rules of Hockey as ‘interpretation’.

I use here the briefing notes about the Free-Hit (which I always refer to as a free or a free-ball because the penalty is not necessarily executed with a hit)  from the UMB as a recent example of this practice.

The Umpire Manager’s briefing for Umpires.

Free Hits

•All opponents must be at least 5 metres from the ball
•For free hits awarded to the attack within their attacking 23 metre area -all players must be at least 5 metres from the ball

In all situations -if taken quickly and a player is within 5 metres of the ball but is not playing, attempting to play the ball or influencing play, the taking of the free hit does not need to be delayed; this same player can play, attempt to play the ball or try to influence play, once the ball has travelled 5 metres –be consistent in your judgment of this.

•Attacking free hits awarded within 5 metres of the circle are taken back to the nearest point 5 metres from the circle.

.
The Rules of Hockey
Rule 13.2 Procedures for taking a free hit, centre pass and putting the ball back into play after it has been outside the field :
All parts of this Rule apply as appropriate to a free hit, centre pass and putting the ball back into play after it has been outside the field.

a      the ball must be stationary

b      opponents must be at least 5 metres from the ball

If an opponent is within 5 metres of the ball, they must not interfere with the taking of the free hit or must not play or attempt to play the ball. If this player is not playing the ball, attempting to play the ball or influencing play, the free hit need not be delayed.

c      when a free hit is awarded to the attack within the 23 metres area, all players other than the player taking the free hit must be at least 5 metres from the ball

.

It will be noted that part of the  advice given in the UMB  has been highlighted (as it is in the current publication) and the highlighted part is a variation of the Rule Guidance given in the Rules of Hockey. In fact it is more than that because the Guidance in the Rules of Hockey is about action that could delay the taking of a free, but – because of the given Guidance – need not do so. The highlighted part (in the UMB) is about action that takes place after the free has been taken, an entirely different context. It perhaps raises the strange question “Is a free not taken until the taker has moved 5m with the ball – or alternatively, moved the ball 5m?” – This late revision has not been properly thought through.

The only legitimate ways to vary the Rules of Hockey, which includes the embedded Guidance, are by amendment to the published Rules of Hockey, which is a bi-annual publication, or by the issue of Rule Variation in FIH Tournament Regulations. The letter below explains when and where such variation may be used.

.
Link.   Application of Rules and Tournament Regulations

.
Extract from the above FIH document
FIH Tournament Regulations deal with the management and presentation of FIH world-level competitions. To enhance the profile of these competitions, Regulations are sometimes introduced which vary the Rules of Hockey. An example is that a Regulation currently specifies a green card indicates a two minute suspension whereas the Rules of Hockey specify a green card indicates a warning.

To encourage consistency in international hockey, such Regulations should be applied to all senior and under-21 international matches. However, the application of such Regulations to any other level of hockey is not endorsed by FIH. All other hockey should be played solely in accordance with the Rules of Hockey.

.

FIH Tournament Regulations Outdoor – January 2012

.

Appendix 9 contains the current Rules Variations to the Rules of Hockey.

There are no variations to Rule 13.2 Procedures for taking a free hit.

.

What the above means, when taken together, is that if the highlighted part of the Free Hits  is regarded as Rule Guidance then the UMB is being used to circumvent correct procedure for the amendment of the Rules of Hockey, even at International level. In other words FIH Officials  are not following the FIH’s own regulations. There is just no way that highlighted advice from the UMB could be said to legitimately apply to any hockey, never mind all hockey.

If this variation is to be incorporated into the Rules of Hockey (and I sincerely hope it will not be because I believe there are better alternatives) then that can only occur with the issue of the Rules of Hockey in 2013.(that didn’t happen, so now 2015) If it is to be introduced only at International level  then a Rule Variation to that effect has to be included in the FIH Tournament Regulations – in the same way that the revised stick bow measuring device was added to them at the beginning of 2012. It’s odd that the rules Committee did not take the opportunity at that time to adjust the Guidance to the ‘Free Hit’ – maybe they don’t intend to.

The proposed changes to the Rules of Hockey for 2013-15 are now known, there is alteration to the free, it may now be directly lifted with any stroke except a hit (making the term Free Hit even more redundant) but there has been (sadly) no amendment to the procedure for taking or the 5m requirements connected with the self-pass.

.

That ‘Briefings’ follow Rule and Rule Guidance, not lead or dictate it, was last set out clearly in the Contents of the  2002 Rules of Hockey thus:- (my colour variations)

RULES’ INTERPRETATIONS
“In the past, in addition to the Rules Interpretations included in the Rules Book, briefing papers have occasionally been prepared primarily for umpires at international tournaments. However, we all play the game by the same set of Rules so interpretations in the Rules Book should be as complete as possible. Additional papers should be unnecessary. Accordingly, Appendix B (Rules Interpretations) in this 2002 edition has been significantly revised. It now incorporates the other briefing papers referred to above.  At the same time the layout and some parts of the text have been simplified.”

******************************

The Rulebook underwent reformatting and a major rewrite in 2004 and much of the text was stripped out. It was not seen as necessary to repeat the above reminder of the ‘status’ of ‘briefings vis a vis the Rules.  That is unfortunate, but it is clear from the FIH letter referred to above (which was issued in 2010) that ‘briefings’ follow the Rules of Hockey not the other way about. Briefings cannot conflict with Rules embedded Rule Guidance of the Rules of Hockey and should not be used to create new and different Rule Guidance; they are for general advice and for the clarification of existing Rule and Rule Guidance.

The oft heard lament that “  ‘they’ are always changing the Rules” is not in fact the case, if ‘they’ is the FIH Rules Committee. But if ‘they’ are Umpire Coaches or individual umpires or groups of umpires, and that seems to so, then there are grounds for complaint. There is certainly cause for concern, but umpires at club level cannot be held to be responsible for confusion, when an UMB published by the FIH introduces variation to the Rules of Hockey without following the proper procedures and complying with the guidelines published by the FIH – especially when umpires are told on the FIH website that the UMB contains useful guidance  for all umpires. It is even more worrying to see senior umpires and others writing on forums about “the latest interpretations” to come from this or that Tournament, especially when such ‘interpretations’ are personal opinion and/or invention without any Rule backing at all. The most pernicious of these to date is the declaration that a shot which is clearly towards the goal cannot be dangerous. which appeared ‘out of the blue’ in television commentary at the 2008 Olympics and was heard to be said to players by an umpire during the Women’s World Cup in 2010.

It would be helpful when referring to ‘The FIH‘ while discussing publications and authority, to distinguish between The FIH Executive , The FIH Rules Committee, The FIH Equipment Committee, and The FIH Umpring Committee.

The FIH Rules Committee have sole authority, granted by The FIH Executive, for the content of the published  Rules of Hockey; the FIH Umpiring Committee advise on the coaching of umpires according to the Rules of Hockey, and to that end, are responsible for the content the UMB. The procedures for changes for rule and Rule Guidance are further explained here:-

http://www.fih.ch/en/sport/rules/faq

This being particularly relevant:-

18. What is the procedure for developing a rules change?

ideas come from a variety of sources including players, coaches, umpires, the media, officials at events, and so on;
ideas either come through National Associations and other groups or are referred directly to the HRB
ideas are analysed and discussed in the Rules Committee usually over a period of time in two or three meetings;
if the change is a relatively minor one, the Rules Committee may then be able to recommend a change;
if a significant change is involved, further investigations will take place and a working group is set up to look at all the implications;
significant changes are progressed through trials and mandatory experiments
having received comment and advice, the Rules Committee will come to a conclusion;
it then prepares a report about proposed rules changes for the Executive Board of the FIH (which will also have sanctioned related trials and mandatory experiments if they have taken place);
the Executive Board will either agree the change or refer it back for further consideration by the Rules Committee; the Executive Board cannot directly amend a proposed change;
it does not happen often, but a change might then have immediate effect;
otherwise the change is incorporated in the next Rules Book.

19. When does a rules change become effective?

Officially the 1 January date applies to all international competitions but National Associations have discretion to decide the implementation date at national level.

20. Who is ultimately responsible for rules changes?

The Rules Committee comes to a conclusion about any changes it considers desirable and prepares a report for the Executive Board of the FIH. The Executive Board will either agree the change or refer it back for further consideration by the Rules Committee; the Executive Board cannot directly amend a proposed change. Thus the ultimate responsibility rests with the Executive Board.

Note: that not even the FIH Executive Board can directly amend a proposed change to the Rules of Hockey (Rule and Rule Guidance). It would therefore be impossible for the Umpiring Committee to amend Rule Guidance via a UMB even in ‘consultation’ with the Rules Committee (which seems to take the form of a chat with the Chairman of the Rules Committee in which s/he is told what the FIH Umpiring Committee is going to do).

The existence of Rule variation and new Rules in the European Hockey League, a Tournament for club teams, further complicates an already complicated situation. Someone needs to ‘gather the reins’.

Link to Index of Rules  http://wp.me/p3tNmd-3