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
