Field Hockey Rules: Rescue of hockey

Edited 23rd June 2012

Field Hockey

Since the retirement of the late George Croft as Hon. Sec. of the Hockey Rules Board, the game has been changed beyond recognition, by which I mean that some of the Rules and Rule Guidance to which the game is supposedly played are no longer recognized, there is sometimes ‘lip service’ to the existence of them, but they are no longer applied as written and certainly not as intended – or even as given in the last amendments published  by the HRB in 2009 or the FIH Rules Committee in 2011.

The first of them is of course the Rule concerning the playing of the ball in a dangerous way.

Rule 9.8  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.

Added to Rule 9.8 is this from Rule 9.9. which is the Rule on intentional raising of the ball with a hit.

A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous.

and then this from the Rules concerning the penalty corner.

13.3.l. for second and subsequent hits at the goal and for flicks, deflections and scoops, it is permitted to raise the ball to any height but this must not be dangerous

if a defender is within five metres of the first shot at goal during the taking of a penalty corner and is struck by the ball below the knee, another penalty corner must be awarded or is struck on or above the knee in a normal stance, the shot is judged to be dangerous and a free hit must be awarded to the defending team.

From the above Rule clauses two conclusions have apparently (because they are common practice) been arrived at.  1) It will never be considered dangerous play to propel a ball at a (standing) opponent at below knee height. 2) An ‘on-target’ shot at the goal cannot be dangerous.

  It is easy enough to see where the first conclusion comes from and there is circumspect advice in the UMB that “Low balls over defenders sticks in a controlled manner that hit half shin pad are not dangerous” which gives partial support for it, but it is not generally correct:  each instance should be viewed in a subjective way taking into consideration intent, recklessness, etc.

The second conclusion, that an ‘on-target’ shot cannot be dangerous, is simply outrageous and a direct contradiction of the intent of the Rule in situations where the goal is defended by players positioned between the shooter and the goal, because it renders irrelevant ‘legitimate evasive action’, which is the only definition of a dangerously played ball there is. If a defender was forbidden to positioned between a shooter and the goal there would be no need for the term ‘legitimate evasive action’ because the positioning could not be legitimate so evasion from the position adopted could not be legitimate – and that seems to be the approach taken to players who attempt to defend a shot at the goal.

The obvious solution is to apply the same kind of objective criteria to any ball that is raised as is applied to the first raised shot at a penalty corner if the ball is hit – not the same criteria but the same kind of criteria ie. objective criteria - but with some refinements. It is prohibited to raise a first hit shot at the goal at a penalty corner above 460mm (an objective criteria) in any circumstances , the ball need not be at a player to be penalised, it could be at an empty goal.  But for a dangerously played ball there must be the possibility of endangerment, so the first criteria suggested  is that the ball is propelled at (towards) a player. (In effect replacing a Rule which was altered in 2004 A player must not raise the ball at another player and was – strangely – moved to the Guidance embedded with Rule 9.9 and had a 5m limit attached to it)

The second consideration is distance. There are already in place the above Rules relating to 5m, but there is a erroneous perception from them that a ball cannot be propelled at a player in a dangerous way from beyond 5m. Given human reaction times, once players are aware that the ball is moving in their direction, just beyond 5m is hopelessly inadequate as a safe distance from which to raise the ball at a player at above knee height.

Taking 0.2 sec as an average reaction time between awareness (sight) and response (any detectable movement), a ball with a velocity of 70mph (not fast by top-level drag-flick standards) will travel approximately 6.32m in that time.

In 0.5 secs. about the time required to respond with the stick to the flight-path of a ball, such a ball will have moved approximately 15.79 m. It is reasonable to suggest that a ball propelled high and at high velocity at another player from within 15m. should be considered potentially dangerous – and that is what is being considered, potential endangerment.

Next is height. The reason the UMB suggests that half shin pad height is not dangerous is because players should be wearing shin-pads, but even if they are not, a hit with the ball on the lower leg is not likely to be immediately life-threatening or to cause permanent injury. But if a player is hit around the heart or in the throat or head that situation changes. These are areas of the body above elbow height, so elbow height, besides being an easy to see reference point (like knee height) is the suggested height for ‘dangerous’. 

This leaves a ‘grey area’ between knee height and elbow height once the ball is more than 5m from an opponent, but umpires should be able to apply common sense and subjective judgement in this (as they claim to at the moment) without recourse to a tape-measure.

A degree of subjective judgement is also required about velocity. An umpire cannot know if the ball is traveling at a velocity of 69 mph or 73 mph  or any other speed, with great accuracy, but can determine if the ball is traveling at a velocity that could cause injury to any player hit with it at the height it is traveling. A hit to the leg, that would perhaps be temporarily painful but not incapacitate the player hit, might fracture the skull of that same player if they were hit on the head – even a ball of moderate speed can cause severe face or head injury.

So there they are 1) At a player    2) Within 15m    3) Above elbow height    4) At a velocity that could injure. Then both players and umpires would know when evasive action was legitimate.

The down-side, if it can be called that, is that consideration for the safety of defenders makes it more difficult to score a goal more skill is required to keep the ball low or target an area not occupied by a defender. It is much easier (if a foot cannot be ‘found’ to win a penalty corner) just to ‘thrash’ the ball at the goal, preferably with a raised reverse edge hit, and if a penalty corner is ‘won’ to flick the ball high at the goal  as powerfully as possible without regard for the positions of defenders (or even to ‘target’ defending players) ; regrettably such cynicism is not uncommon.

There are two other Rules to consider. The first, the Obstruction Rule needs a little amendment (the replacement of “is permitted to” with “must“) but it then needs to be applied, with its Guidance, as it is currently written.

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.

But it would probably be helpful to list obstructive acts – all of which are now generally ignored -  in the UMB and the current rulebook as they were listed in 2003 in the Advice for Umpires section then at the back of that rulebook  :-

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.

It would, however, be better all round if  the UMB, with its unauthorized additions to Rule Guidance and conflicts with the published Rules, ceased to be published at all – it is worse than an utterly useless document because it is divisive  – and furthermore it was supposed to have been discontinued having been subsumed into the rulebook after 2002.

From Content of the Rulebook 2002

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.
Everyone is encouraged to read the full revised text of Appendix B.

(So much for good intentions).

Third-party obstruction should be considered under a separate heading and not ‘mixed up’ as it is now with obstruction by a player in possession of the ball.

Lastly, Rule 9.11 needs to be restored and simplified as:-

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

This simply moves the word ‘intentionally’ back to the Rule where it was and has been for much of the time hockey has been played. This is necessary because some National Associations, Australia for example, seem to regard the Rule Guidance as optional (except when it suits them not to do so – as in the Obstruction Rule, where Guidance which was deleted in 2001 is applied as if current). 

One result of this approach to Rule Guidance  is the regarding of all ball/body contact as an offence – which is the opposite of what was originally intended, and is still intended if the Rule Guidance is taken proper account of.  The skill of making space in the circle to score a goal has been replaced with merely getting into the circle and then ‘finding a foot’ – pathetic.

.

Several other deleted areas such as Gains Benefit and Forcing as an offence need restoration, with rewording to make them more precise, but the rescue of the game – conducted as now as a  form of ‘soccer’ with sticks – depends mainly on the repair or restoration of the three Rules areas set out above.
.
Link to Index of Rules  http://wp.me/p3tNmd-3

Field Hockey Rules: Major Conflicts

A statement by a senior umpire recently posted on a closed Internet field hockey board.

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.

Let’s take another look at that statement. What is the umpire who wrote it claiming? Well he declares you are being lied to by “some”  who claim there are major conflicts between:-

1) The content of the rulebook and the way the FIH want the Rules ‘blown’ (applied).

2) What is written in the book and how that is interpreted by FIH Umpires – i.e. conflict about the meaning of the language used in the Rules and Rule Guidance and also conflict about the purpose of the advice, Rule and Rule Guidance that is given in the rulebook – the intent of the Rules.

3) The way the content of the rulebook is interpreted by FIH umpires and how the FIH want the Rules applied.

I agree there is no conflict between the content of the rulebook and the way the FIH wants the Rules applied. The Rules are drafted by the FIH Rules Committee and approved by the FIH Executive. In matters of Rules for Conduct of Play, equipment specs and related areas, theses two bodies are “the FIH”, so what is written in the Rules of Hockey is what the FIH want. This degree of truth lends credence to the falsehood that there is no major conflict.

The conflict is in areas 2) and 3) How FIH Umpires (or any other group of umpires) choose to interpret and apply the Rules and Rule Guidance i.e. how they interpret what the FIH want or in other words, how they interpret what the FIH Rules Committee have published in the Rules of Hockey.

The same individual who wrote the quoted statement has suggested on the previous occasions he has submitted the same declaration (at least half-a-dozen times previously), that if umpires were not doing what the FIH wanted they (the umpires) would not continue to be reappointed. There is something in that, but then who replaces them? Umpires who have been trained in the same way by the same people who coached the current crop? It is not as easy to make sweeping changes as we might like after years of verbal ‘cascading’ of personal opinion.  This is not a matter of trimming a few dead branches, the whole tree has to be uprooted and a new one planted, the core is rotten.

The FIH Appointments Committee should not have anything at all to do with the drafting and adoption of Rules and Rule Guidance, and (in theory) the FIH Umpiring Committee only a consultative role, pertaining perhaps to the impact on or difficulty for umpires in applying changes made to Rule or Rule Guidance i.e. those  drafted by the FIH Rules Committee for approval by the FIH Executive. To this end the FIH Umpiring Ciommittee produce the UMB (Umpire Managers Briefing for Umpires at FIH Tournaments) – which is NOT the Rules of Hockey and can never conflict with the Rules of Hockey, but in fact the UMB is used to alter the the intended application of the Rules of Hockey.

Going back to 2) -  Who or what is the conflict of the FIH Umpires with and why is there conflict?  The answer is a) the meaning of language b) common sense and c) fairness – so, everybody and everything – and it is done in the name of ‘consistency’.  So how are they getting away with it?

They get away with it because they are almost unchallenged, largely because of a general apathy, and because they issue statements in Internet forums like the one above – along the lines ‘We are right so we must be right’ e.g.  “This is what other (or all) FIH Umpires do” are typical ‘conclusive arguments’ – statements and attitudes designed to resist and repel any ‘outside’ influence on how they umpire.

FIH Umpire Managers and FIH Umpire Coaches behave as if they ARE “the FIH”, even some individual FIH Umpires do so and can become furious if their opinion is challenged. They like to treat everybody outside the umpiring fraternity as if they are players under their authority on a pitch during a hockey match – where questioning  may be treated as dissent and met with punishment. “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.“

The conflicts ‘boil down’ to understanding the meaning and intent of the Rules and Rule Guidance provided by the FIH Rules Committee. Major conflict is easy to demonstrate.

Major conflict:  No reading of the Rule 9.8 or any other Rule could possibly lead to the conclusion that an on target shot at the goal cannot be dangerous play.

 Major conflict: No reading of Rule 9.12 could possibly lead to the conclusion that the player attempting to tackle in the picture shown is not obstructed – but quite obviously neither player is expecting an ‘obstruction’ call and the umpire did not recognize the ball holder’s actions (or lack of action) as obstructive play – ball shielding to prevent a legitimate tackle.

Previous umpiring practice has led to ignorance of the Rule – and not only this one. How umpires apply the Rules, not what is written in the Rules of Hockey, has come to dictate what the Rules are or are perceived to be.

.

.

.

.

Major conflict: No reading of Rule 9.9 could possibly lead to the conclusion that intentionally raising the ball into the circle with a hit is not an offence or can be ignored unless dangerous.(It is sloppy of the FIH Executive to allow contradiction of this point in the UMB )

Major conflict: No reading of Rule 9.11. could possibly lead to the conclusion that all ball/body contacts are offences and that any ball/body contact may be penalised. FIH Umpires and others will be quick to point out in forums and in conversation that they completely agree with this observation, but ‘in practice’ all ball/body contacts are treated as offences.

Major conflict: No reading of Rule 13.1 (Procedure for taking a Free Hit) could possibly lead to the conclusion that, having taken a self-pass when an opponent is still within 5m, the taker is then entitled to move the ball 5m before that opponent may challenge for the ball or otherwise influence the play of the taker (Here again what has been added to the UMB – taken from previous umpiring interpretation – contradicts the Rule Guidance given in Rules of Hockey). If you have any doubt about that then read the Rule and Rule Guidance.

My name is ‘some’ and I am one of thousands who disagree with the statement that there is no conflict between the published Rules of Hockey and the way in which they are applied.

Field Hockey Rules: The ‘Sticks’ Rule

Field Hockey Rules. This is the 2011-13 version.

Rule 9.2  Players on the field must hold their stick and not use it in a dangerous way.

          Players must not lift their stick over the heads of other players.

The following was the version extant until 1984 - no subjective judgement at all – if any part of the stick was above the shoulder in the play described an offence had occurred.

Rule 12. 1. e)  A player must not raise any part of his stick above his shoulder, either at the beginning or at the end of a stroke, when approaching, attempting to play, playing the ball, or stopping the ball.

From 1995 to 2004, (when the current Rule was introduced), the Rule read:-

Players shall not:
13.1.1 Use of stick and playing equipment
a. play the ball intentionally with the back of the stick
b. take part in or interfere with the game unless they have their sticks in their hand
c. play the ball above shoulder height with any part of their sticks
d. lift their sticks over the heads of players
e. use their sticks in a manner that is dangerous, intimidating or hampering
f. play the ball dangerously or in such a way as to be likely to lead to dangerous play.

The emphasis had moved from raising any part of the stick above the shoulder to the playing of the ball (but not, oddly, attempting to play the ball) at above shoulder height. Now of course a defender is allowed to play an on target shot at the goal that is above shoulder height – and there is pressure to further ease restriction on such the playing of the ball.

That’s fine except for one thing, ‘dangerous’ remains a subjective judgement. This is not a serious problem when dealing with the playing of an aerial ball at above shoulder height because there is an encroachment Rule which should keep a player likely to contest for a falling ball at least 5m away until the ball is on the ground. But in moving the focus to the playing of the ball at above shoulder height it has been moved from other dangerous use of the stick. I can’t recall the last time I saw a player penalised for using the stick in a dangerous or illegal way other than while playing the ball at above shoulder height when an aerial pass had been made.

Prior to 1984 players could be penalised for just approaching a ball on the ground while raising their stick above their shoulder, even if there was no opponent anywhere near them: so players had to learn how to hit the ball without raising the stick head  with a high back-swing or high follow-through. As a consequence there were very few head/face injuries from stick contacts and those that did occur were almost always caused as a result of a tackler coming in to tackle with their head low – usually on the blind-side of a striker.

It must have been considered silly to penalise a player for using a high stick when there was no opponent close enough to be injured with the swinging stick, and so it was, but in changing what was permitted and introducing ‘dangerous use’ as the sole criteria, the ‘baby was thrown out with the bath water’, because there was no guidance given as to what constituted ‘dangerous use’, other than lifting the stick over (from one side to the other) the head of an opponent.  Because there is no guidance about other possible ‘dangerous use’ it seems to be assumed there cannot be any. (This is similar to the assumption, made by many participants, that because it is dangerous play to raise the ball at above knee height at an opponent who is within 5m, it cannot be dangerous play to similarly raise the ball at a player who is more than 5m away; that is obviously a flawed conclusion when a ball may be propelled at close to 100mph).

The long term result of this decrease in awareness of danger from the use of the stick has been that players no longer commonly use a low stick-swing to hit the ball and the number of head/face injuries caused by contact with the hockey stick has risen dramatically since the mid 1980′s,  hence the call for goggles and helmets particularly in American High School games.

Here is an example of dangerous use of the stick at a much higher level:-

I originally posted this clip in connection with obstruction, but obviously if there was no high back-swing of the stick – previously an offence, even with no opponent within the swing arc of the stick – there would have been no injury to the player attempting to position to tackle. Incomprehensibly the umpire awarded a free to the Spanish player – but it probably is against the Rules to play at an opponent’s stick with the face even if that player has obstructed the path to the ball.

Here is a more recent example from the Olympic Test Event:-

Most umpires would I think have stopped play as soon as the ball deflected up from the goal-keeper to above head height – it was obviously going to fall among players who would contest for it. I have no idea why this umpire was giving a ‘play on’ signal. If umpires do not intervene in such circumstances sooner or later there will be a serious head/face injury.

Obviously leaving this sort of thing to subjective judgement does not always work as it should and thought needs to be given to prohibiting the raising of any part of the stick above the shoulder when there is an opponent within stick distance.
.

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