A question asked on a hockey related website. …an attacker aims to cross the ball into the circle and it either jams off a defenders stick attempting to make a tackle or raises off another player (defender) further away and the result is the ball looping up into a crowded circle. ……………………… Free Hit or Penalty corner?
An opinion and advice given by a senior umpire. An aerial is a pass. An inadvertent deflection is not. Please don’t apply the aerial rules to every instance of a ball in the air because that is absolutely not the intended use of the rule.
The Rule.
9.10 Players must not approach within 5 metres of an opponent receiving a falling raised ball until it has been received, controlled and is on the ground.
The initial receiver has a right to the ball. If it is not clear which player is the initial receiver, the player of the team which raised the ball must allow the opponent to receive it.
I disagree with the advice given. This is a Rule designed to prevent dangerous play when the ball is in the air and falling, whether or not the ball has been passed from one player to another, or is intended as a pass, is irrelevant.
It’s not a well written Rule because every ball which is raised to any height will fall and there is no indication of the height the ball must reach before the rule comes into force, but general practice seems to be that the Rule applies to a ball falling from above shoulder height, commonly from well above head height.
There is no indication of horizontal distance travelled either or of the method of propulsion, so the ball could be scooped 50m or more or could go almost straight up and down again as a result of a deflection – there is no mention of intent. It is not, on the other hand, so badly written that the above advice could be inferred as true from what is given, there is no ambiguity other than the relevant height.
There is no indication within the Rule that it refers to a ball deliberately passed with a scoop or lob or flick, what are commonly referred to as aerial balls when the ball is raised over distance – and usually considerably above shoulder height. The term ‘aerial’ does not appear in the Rules of Hockey at all.
This same umpire was advising another questioner, a few months ago, “The aerial Rules do not apply to a shot on goal“. I can’t see any grounds for that deduction either. It is unwise, even pernicious, for a senior umpire to offer personal opinion of dubious truth, which might be taken as official FIH Rule Guidance, when it is no such thing: in fact the advice given is the opposite of what a reasonable person would deduce from the wording of the Rule.
I deduce from the Rule wording.
When there is a deflection of the ball up off a defender’s stick and it loops into a crowded circle from outside the circle, play must be stopped if the ball is going to fall among players who might contest for it, but I can’t see an offence there. There are two incidents of poor skill; the attacker played the ball too close to the defender, so the defender got a stick on it but failed to stop the ball. Neither is an offence, a bully seems correct.
If a deflected ball is falling to a player of either team in space inside the circle and there is no danger directly from the flight of from the deflection, then the only thing that might give rise to penalty is an encroachment infraction. Depending on which side is doing the encroaching, a free ball or a penalty stroke should be awarded (with a card in both cases).
Timing of the whistle is very important. The umpire needs to wait to see if danger is likely to develop – if not the whistle is not necessary the game can continue – if yes, then the potential danger must not be allowed to actually occur.
The Field Hockey Rule about playing the ball in a dangerous way is sparse. Much of the information about the dangerous propelling of the ball is distributed among other Rules and also has mixed into it Guidance about the playing of the ball with the body – which is,or should be, considering that a dangerously played ball is described as one that causes legitimate evasive action, an entirely different and separate matter.
Rule 9.8 Players must not play the ball dangerously or in a way which leads to dangerous play.
Players are permitted to raise the ball with a flick or scoop provided it is not dangerous. A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous.(Placed here for the purposes of this article, but taken from Rule 9.9, which is the Rule prohibiting the intentional raising of the ball with a hit – note there is no lower or minimum height given for “considered dangerous” )
A ball is considered dangerous when it causes legitimate evasive action by players.
“Play the ball dangerously” is not described nor is “play which leads to dangerous play” or “dangerous play” because these are subjective judgements made by an umpire. A ball is dangerous when it causes legitimate evasive action by players. Again, legitimate evasive action is a subjective judgement made by an umpire. We are not told on what criteria such judgements should be based, many umpires describe the process as ‘gut instinct’ and ‘selling the decision’ and seem happy with that if players don’t complain (not that players are allowed to complain, that is considered dissent.)
There are objective criteria that can be used but they apply only to the propelling of the ball within 5m of an opponent; all judgement of a ball in relation to the dangerous propelling of it from beyond 5m of an opponent is entirely subjective. This means that players can only appeal for or against dangerous play decisions when the action in question took place within 5m of the player endangered, or not endangered as the case may be; there is no appeal (video referral) possible to examine an umpire’s personal opinion that the propelling of the ball in other circumstances was or was not dangerous.What criteria would the video umpire look for? Evasive action is not based on the fact that evasive action was taken but whether or not the evasion was legitimate, and that is a personal opinion.
The lack of objective criteria when the ball is propelled at a player from beyond 5m is unsatisfactory because 5m is an unrealistic ‘cut off’ distance – and it is treated as a cut off distance although it is mentioned only as a distance within which some actions are considered dangerous - there is in fact no limit to the distance from which a ball propelled at another player may be considered dangerous to that player, but ‘in practice’ 5m is, illogically, rigidly adhered to.
The basing of “dangerously played ball” on “legitimate evasive action” i.e. the judgement of the action of the player propelling the ball being determined by the reaction of the player possibly endangered by that ball, is also illogical: there are a number of circumstances where there will be no reaction at all from the defender, the defender being unaware that the ball has been propelled in their direction and others where the velocity of the ball and the distance it was propelled from (even considerably beyond 5m) makes evasion impossible.
In addition to those problems there are problems of ‘attitude’ to the positioning of defenders, particularly when positioned between the goal and a shooter in the circle. Some umpires see evasive action as an attempt to ‘con’ the umpire into believing that a ball was propelled dangerously or see successful evasive action as a demonstration that the ball was not played dangerously – “…the player had time to get out of the way of it so not dangerous” is an often expressed view. The fact that a dangerously played ball is defined by legitimate evasive action so evasive action can be legitimate and a reason to declare a ball dangerous doesn’t seem to lodge in the minds of these people, they don’t see any contradiction between their view and the Rule Guidance given in the Rules of Hockey. The same umpires also often take the view that a player who has failed to take evasive action has remaining in the path of the ball with the intention of using the body to play it – even when there is clearly an attempt to play at the ball with the stick – such players are said to place their body behind the stick with the intention of playing the ball with the body if they miss it with the stick. (As an aside to that, the same umpires may hold the view that defenders are obliged to defend their feet with the stick, so should position the stick in front of the feet – but having positioned the feet behind the stick, if a foot is hit with the ball, there is then from the prior ‘argument’ assumed to be intention to play the ball with the foot). These conflicting ‘catch 22′ style attitudes alone are sufficient grounds for the provision of objective criteria for the judgement of a dangerously played ball, when the ball is raised at velocity at defenders, rather than the sole use of purely subjective judgement (or, more commonly, the following of specific instruction or even just ingrained habit or ‘dogma’).
*********************************
Rule 9.9 prohibits the intentional raising of the ball with a hit but contains Guidance on the raising of the ball towards an opponent, who is within 5m, with a flick or a scoop. That Guidance would be more appropriately placed in Rule 9.8. (as above)
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.
Players are permitted to raise the ball with a flick or scoop provided it is not dangerous. A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous. (Note there is no lower or minimum height given for “dangerous” to be considered)
A defender who is clearly running into the shot or into the taker without attempting to play the ball with their stick must be penalised for dangerous play.
The above clause (which, for an unknown reason, is the only one given twice in the Rules of Hockey) clearly doesn’t belong in Guidance to a Rule about a dangerously played ball ( a ball propelled in a dangerous way) or a Rule about the intentional raising of the ball with a hit. It would be more appropriately be placed in Rule 9.11. the ball/body contact Rule. Self-endangerment could in any case be described as irresponsible or reckless play, rather than dangerous play, to distinguish it from play that endangered another player, particularly with the ball. If a defender’s action does endanger both parties then it is both reckless (and/or irresponsible) and dangerous.
Clearly the raising of the ball with a hit referred to in Rule 9.9 cannot be considered to be dangerous play every time it occurs even if it is done intentionally and this has given rise to an ‘in practice’ contradiction of the Rule Guidance, which is expressed succinctly in the Umpire Manger’s Briefing for FIH Tournaments as “forget-lifted – think danger“. In another passage the UMB states “a ball raised to half-shin-pad height is not dangerous” (which is generally true only if the player hit is standing at the time). Again ‘in practice’ a raised hit, outside the circle or across the circle, intentional or not, is not penalised unless it is hit at above knee height towards a player positioned within 5m of the striker or is hit at a player’s upper body and causes evasive action or hits the player (and sometime not even then).
Legal intentional raising of the ball with a hit, that is when the raised hit is an on target shot at the goal, has developed a mythology of its own. In fact at the 2008 Olympics a verbal UMB seems to have issued to the match umpires (and television commentators),
which declared that no ‘on target’ shot at the goal, be it raised hit or flick, could be considered dangerous play. The same advice was given to the umpires and television commentators at the 2010 World Cups Such instruction makes a nonsense of course of (the already regularly ignored) ‘legitimate evasive action’ as a definition of a dangerously played ball.
The real issue with the raised hit is the raising of the ball into the circle from outside the circle and the raising of the ball across rather than at the goal in the circle. The latter is not a big problem at the moment, it happens too often to be accidental, such hits are commonly raised to just below knee height, but are generally dealt with by umpires reasonable well when it is obvious they are dangerous. It may however become more of an issue with the event of the ‘Own Goal’ and the possibility of more ‘hit and hope’. ‘Accidentally’ raised hits across the face of the goal – if they are not raised to above knee height they are not going to be penalised if current ‘practice’ is any guide – that will not be good enough for a supposed emphasis on safety and certainly unfair.
The present Rule is inadequate to deal with the illegally intentionally raised hit because of the effect of the advice given in UMB’s and because it is very difficult to be sure that a players has raised the ball intentionally- without certainty there can be no penalty, although there appears to be no difficulty in being certain that what looked like an accidental or forced ball/body contact was ‘in fact’ intentional or made voluntarily .
The easiest way to deal with intentional raising of hits into the circle is to prohibit any raising of the ball directly into the circle with a hit (with a small leeway for surface imperfection and ball skipping e.g. ball height off the surface). At the same time the ban on the propelling of any ball directly into the circle from a free awarded in the opponent’s 23m area should be withdrawn (which would in turn free the Self-Pass from then unnecessary restrictions imposed because of the ban on playing a free directly into the circle – but that is in a previous article).It is sufficient for safety of the direct pass into the circle that the ball be taken back outside the hash circle .
We don’t need ‘belt and braces’ on the free within the 23m area, when there is no corresponding restriction on playing the ball into the circle in open play – except that it should not be intentionally raised – especially when such raising of the ball is so often ignored.
********************************
9.10 Players must not approach within 5 metres of an opponent receiving a falling raised ball until it has been received, controlled and is on the ground.
The initial receiver has a right to the ball. If it is not clear which player is the initial receiver, the player of the team which raised the ball must allow the opponent to receive it.
This Rule which prohibits approaching a player receiving a ‘falling raised ball’ neglects to mention dangerous playing of the ball at all or even describe what is meant by a ‘falling raised ball’ – all balls which are raised in any degree will fall to ground.
‘In practice’ a ball which has been raised high enough to be considered ‘falling’ in a way that may lead to dangerous play, is typically one that has been raised (considerably) above head height at the apex of its flight, and generally, it will have been propelled between 15m and 70m in a horizontal direction, but could just go straight up and down again, without significant horizontal travel, as rebounds or deflections sometimes do. The stroke most commonly used to raise the ball over long distances at heights above head height is referred to as a scoop stroke and the ball itself as an ‘aerial ball’ ( a term that has never been used in any rulebook).
There are two ways in which a player ‘throwing’ an aerial ball may endanger opponents. The first to to play the aerial ball in such a way as it is raised that an opponent is obliged to take evasive action (this could better be put ‘forced to self-defence’) – the endangered player would normally have to be within 5m and not attempting to play the ball intentionally with the body (which means he or she should be attempting to play the ball with the stick) to be considered endangered. Exceptions might be when the player hit, was a player from the same team as the player propelling the ball, who was not watching the ball as it was raised or an opposition player who was unsighted as the ball was raised, perhaps by another player moving in front of him.
Endangerment from the drag-flick shot at the goal, which is a specialized development of the scoop used as a shot at a penalty corner, is frequently the result of either accidental (own side) or deliberate (opposition) sight blocking – sometimes its a combination of the two, when the flicker deliberately uses the body of an out-runner as a means to shield sight of the ball and the path of the shot from the players positioned behind the out-runner- often endangering both the out-runner and (if the out-runner evades the ball) the player positioned behind him. That is how Geoff Irwin of Cookstown, who was positioned on the goal-line, had his skull fractured in a EHL game last season: he didn’t see the ball before it hit him.
The second way the scoop may endanger is if it is ‘thrown’ so that it will land in an area where opposing players are already positioned within 5m of each other, most commonly when the contesting players are side on to each other and the ball is falling between them rather than well wide to one side of them (which is unlikely to be dangerous in itself or to lead to dangerous play). In such situations the scooper has created a potentially dangerous situation – that is play that leads to dangerous play – (I preferred the previous wording “play likely to lead to dangerous play” because the danger need not actually occur for the scoop to be penalised, the umpire intervening at the right moment to prevent dangerous play developing ). Where the ball is falling into a contested area the umpire can wait to allow the players of the same team as the scooper to retreat and give room to the the opposition receiver (in which case there is no need to penalise the aerial), but must intervene and penalise the player who lifted the ball, if the same team player fail to give the required 5m space. In these circumstances there has been no encroachment offence (or if there is further encroachment it is irrelevant) as the opposing players were already too close when the ball was raised, so the lifter of the ball has played it dangerously, if there is retreat by the same team players in the area in which the ball is falling there is no need to stop the game to penalise the lifter’s offence – timing of the whistle is critical to safe outcome and game flow – but better too soon than too late.
An encroachment offence following an aerial pass occurs when the aerial is played into clear space or to an individual receiver in space and then after the ball is in the air but before the ball has been controlled to ground opponent/s close to challenge for the ball.
With the introduction of the Direct-Lift from a Free-ball, especially as it coincides with the introduction of the Own Goal, the use of an aerial from outside the 23m area directly into the circle may (probably will) lead to some dangerous situations. The suggestion that the Direct-Lift be not permitted directly into the circle has been ignored (which is strange when no propelling of the ball into the circle is allowed at all from a Free awarded within the 23m area). The scoop into the circle in open play will not be anything like the same as the scoop used in a set-piece – just as the result of a drag-flick at a penalty corner is not much like the use of a scoop in open play.
Because the specialist scoop shot called the drag-flick is a shot at the goal the endangerment of players moving to close down on the shot and attempting to block/intercept it with their sticks seems to be completely overlooked (for reasons which are entirely unclear, it is the defenders rather than the flicker who are the more likely to be penalised if a defender is hit with the ball – even at well above knee height- in such circumstances) and nor, irrationally, do defenders defending rising shots made to above head height get the same clear space protection as those fielding a falling ball, especially in the outfield – senior umpires have even declared (Dunn) that the space requirement for a falling ball does not apply when a lob or scoop shot is made at the goal because “aerial Rules do not apply to shots at goal” (which is contradicted by Gawley).
***************************************
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 stoppingthe ball in this way.
(From Rule 9.9) A defender who is clearly running into the shot or into the taker without attempting to play the ball with their stick must be penalised for dangerous play. (irresponsible or reckless play – “Players are expected to act responsibly at all times.”
It is not an offence if the ball hits the hand holding the stick but would otherwise have hit the stick.
Rule 9.11. has been included in this article about the dangerous propelling of the ball because guidance from another Rule on the propelling of the ball contained a Guidance clause which properly belongs in this Rule. In passing it is worth mentioning again that the restoration of the word ‘intentionally’ to Rule 9.11, so that it reads : Field players must not intentionally stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their body. would do away with the need for :- 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…
The following clause which is tacked onto that :- ….or if they position themselves with the intention of stoppingthe ball in this way. is a complete mystery. I have no idea what it means and have never met anyone who could satisfactorily explain it.
Is it the positioning that is the offence? If so, why does an umpire permit such positioning, at a penalty corner for example? Is it the prior intention of stopping the ball with hand, foot or body that is the offence? If so, how is such intention determined if the defender is 10m – 15m from the shooter and has no certainty about the direction and height at which the ball will be propelled? The only sensible explanation I can come up with is that this clause was intended to prevent/penalise breaking down of play with the body from short range i.e. from within playing distance of the ball: actions such as falling across the path of a ball holder, effectively ‘tackling’ with the body – which is obviously potentially dangerous to opponents and irresponsibly reckless.
In passing it is necessary to point out yet again that there is no ‘gains benefit’ clause to give exception to the first clause of the present guidance, so if a player unintentionally or unavoidably makes a foot/ball contact that prevents the ball going into the goal there is still no offence: that situation needs to be addressed. Provided there has been no prior dangerous play or forcing of contact by attackers, a penalty stroke is just in such circumstances. I am, however, very much opposed to a reintroduction of the ‘catch all’ gains benefit, where any contact made was (and still is) seen as of benefit and penalised accordingly, that just made a nonsense of the Rule: the sort of nonsense that is still being made of : -The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball
Procedure for Penalty Corner
k. if the first shot at goal is a hit (as opposed to a push, flick or scoop), the ball must cross the goal-line, or be on a path which would have resulted in it crossing the goal-line, at a height of not more than 460 mm (the height of the backboard) before any deflection, for a goal to be scored.
The requirements of this Rule apply even if the ball touches the stick or body of a defender before the first shot at goal. If the first shot at goal is a hit and the ball is, or will be, too high crossing the goal-line it must be penalised even if the ball is subsequently deflected off the stick or body of another player.
The ball may be higher than 460 mm during its flight before it crosses the goal-line provided there is no danger and provided it would drop of its own accord below 460 mm before crossing the line.
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.
The height restriction on a first hit shot at a penalty corner is there for reasons of player safety, but even so the FIH HRB (now the FIH Rules Committee) do not say straight out that a hit shot raised to pass over the goal-line at above 460mm is dangerous play, but only that a goal cannot be scored with such a shot, and it should be penalised – but for what penalised if not dangerous play? Non-compliance with objective criteria for the scoring of a goal? That is not an offence any more than hitting the ball at the goal from outside the circle is.
The ‘holy cow’ is the shot at the goal, some get apoplectic at the suggestion that any shot at the goal be considered dangerous to defenders “Who have put themselves in the way” etc. etc. (as if defending the goal by positioning in front of it, the only place from which it can be defended, was an illicit action). The term ‘legitimate evasive action’ would never have been coined if evasive action could not be legitimate (which means the defender was legitimately positioned in the first instance) and if such evasion did not describe a dangerously played ball. Where there is no defender to be endangered there can be no dangerously played ball. The very existence of the term ‘dangerously played ball’ means it is possible to endanger a player by propelling the ball (at them). There is no exclusion of the goal from ‘dangerously played ball’. It wouldn’t make much sense if there were, probably in excess of 90% of the balls that are played in a way that could be described as dangerous to others, are shots at the goal. Far fewer shots at goal are penalised than should be. Why? Firstly, because it is legal to raise the ball to any height with a hit at the goal and there is an (encouraged) perception that defenders cause danger to themselves by their defensive positioning, and that shooters are not responsible for the consequences of high shots made towards defenders positioned between them and the goal. Naturally these notions are not to be found anywhere in writing in any FIH issued document, but ‘in practice’ that is how it plays out.
The principal reason things are viewed that way is because “a dangerously played ball” is (in theory) an almost entirely subjectively determined judgement made by an umpire. In fact, in order to achieve consistency between umpires particularly at FIH Tournament level, umpires follow briefing instructions and do not make case by case judgements about such matters as ball/body contact by defenders in the circle – defenders are routinely ‘automatically’ penalised for any such contact. One has only to listen to the question and answer about a foot contact by a defender in the circle during a video referral to remove all doubt on this point – there is never a question about the intent of the player making contact with the ball, just “Was there any contact?”. In a short time players come to expect this automatic penalising of any ball/body contact, even to demand it and to play to obtain (force) such contacts by opponents in the circle. This became so much the practice that having a Rule that stated that forcing ball/foot contact was an offence became an embarrassment and a way was found to delete it (while pretending only to transfer such forcing to “other Rules”). Technically even the forcing of self-defence ceased to exist as an offence and was, presumably, transferred to the dangerous play Rule. Not a ‘big deal’ it might be said, except that the forcing of self-defence is a far better description of the dangerous played ball than ‘legitimate evasive action’ and not long ago was central to thinking about safety and the control of the raised ball. (see John Gawley’s The Lifted Ball Umpire Coaching document).
That coaching document, first written in 2001, is laughed at now (except the bits that have been ‘cherry picked’ for compliance with current ‘thinking’) not because of the conflict in its content (it is very conflicted) but because it has not been revised since 2005, but a dangerously played ball has been defined as one that “causes legitimate evasive action by players” at least as far back as the earliest rulebook I possess, which is for the year 1976.
Revision of the definition of ‘a dangerously played ball’ is long overdue, but the FIH Rules Committee have not yet got around to noticing the existence of the drag-flick as a shooting stroke at a penalty corner and seem at present more concerned with changing the descriptions of the way the pitch marking are measured – not the actual measurements just the descriptions of those measurements – and other similar vital concerns.
Most of the following suggestion was first made about twelve years ago, but as no-one else has offered an alternative, I repeat it and add to it, for completeness, clauses to cover the aerial ball.
A dangerously played ball ( meets the objective criteria below and) is a ball propelled in such a way that it forces a player to self-defence or hits that player despite an attempt to evade the ball or to play at it with the stick. .
A player who is hit may have been unable to take defensive action either because of the distance from which the ball was propelled and/or velocity of the ball or because the player was impeded or was unaware that he or she was endangered, being unsighted or unable to track the ball at the critical moments.
Objective criteria:- The ball
a) is propelled at a player, (A ball passing the side of the head within the shoulder width of the player will be considered ‘at’). and
b) is traveling at above the elbow height of the player (The player standing in a normal upright playing stance) and
c) has been propelled at a velocity that forces self defence to avoid injury.
A subjective judgement because actual speed cannot reliably be determined by eye but an objective one also because the velocity of a ball raised with a flick is comparable with the (seen and remembered) velocity of a ball that was raised with a hit. The velocity at which injury is probable when the ball is at the head or throat of a player is modest. That a ball will, if not defended or evaded, hit a player in either area at all is sufficient evidence of endangerment. Players are unlikely to be incapacitated by hits to the chest area from a ball traveling at less than 50kph, but it is not the intention that umpires should be looking for reasons not to penalise the playing of the ball at an other player at above elbow height – but the opposite – a ball at that height that forces self-defence should be penalised unless there is good reason not to penalise. A ball that is losing velocity and falling as it reaches the defender may often be considered safe enough to be coped with, but if it is rising and/or has sufficient momentum to carry it around 10m beyond the defending player it should be considered dangerous to that player.
d) has been propelled from less than 20m of the endangered player.
The possibility of a drag-flick into the circle in open play becomes a realistic tactical possibility with the introduction of the Own Goal, so this distance – which was initially 15m – is increased to 20m to cope with that possibility.
e) Any ball propelled at a player within 3m at above knee height will be considered dangerous play, irrespective of ball velocity.
Circumstances and therefore criteria change when a player is not standing and facing the ball in a normal playing stance e.g when a player has fallen or has been tripped, umpire judgement of endangerment is required when a player is on the ground.
Aerial ball:
A ball may also be considered to be played dangerously if it is raised to above head height with a scoop or scoop-like stroke and has been directed so as to land between players within 5m of each other who are likely to compete for possession of it before it hits the ground.
Even when players are positioned close to each other a ball directed to land well to one side, especially on the flanks and towards the sideline outside the players, will generally not be considered dangerously played.
Where the ball is lofted over a defender to an attacker who is 2m or more the defender’s goal side of the defender the ball will be considered to have been played into clear space and therefore not dangerously.
An aerial ball may be stopped and taken to ground by defenders in their own circle and by any player in all other parts of the field – excepting attackers in the opponent’s circle – always provided that there is no opponent within 5m of the player playing the ball in this way.
Hitting or deflecting away of a ball at any height above shoulder height is prohibited as dangerous play.
General open play.
Raising the ball into the circle with a hit is prohibited.
(The current ban on playing a free-ball awarded in the opponents 23m area, directly into the circle should be withdrawn)
Raising the ball directly into the circle with a Direct Lift is prohibited
Bouncing the ball into the circle with a Direct lift will need to be judged on its apparent dangers but should be discouraged.
(presently permitted)
Penalty Corner.
If the first shot at goal is a hit it is limited to 460mm as it crosses the goal-line. Any first hit shot which will obviously not cross the goal-line below this height to be penalised as dangerous immediate that is apparent
If the first shot at goal is a flick it is not height limited but the dangerously played ball criteria must be strictly applied. In particular the ball must not be propelled at any player at above elbow height.
Goal to be marked at 120cms with a 50mm tape from goal post to goal post around the back of the goal
The automatic penalising of a player with another penalty corner after being hit below the knee with a shot at goal during a penalty corner should be withdrawn, it is unjustified, unfair and encourages intimidation by means of hard raised hits into the legs of defenders. The possibility now also exists that such a hit could be made first time from outside the circle into the legs of defenders and result in a deflected ‘own goal’ – this tactical possibility increases the potential for the dangerous playing of a hit and of the hit that results directly in danger from high deflections.
Summary
Apart form the aerial pass, a dangerously played ball is a ball that has been propelled at a player at above elbow height (120cm for senior men) from within 20m. at a velocity that will force self defence to avoid injury.
The order in which most of criteria are presented does not matter, the critical one however, and therefore the first, is at a player. It does not matter how high the ball is propelled or at what velocity or from which distance – if it is not at a player it cannot force either evasion or any other sort of self defence and therefore will not be dangerous.
For the aerial ball from the Direct Lift in particular, it is the proximity of opposing players to the chosen landing point and what the same team players do (or do not do) which will determine whether or not the lofted pass will be considered dangerous at point of lift. In open play the scoop can be dangerous to opponents in exactly the same way as the lifted ball described above and may also be dangerous play if lofted to land among opposing player who were within 5m at the time the ball was raised – and the same team players fail to retreat 5m from the landing point.
Now that the Direct Lift has become a Mandatory Experiment in field hockey this article has additional relevance.
“We simply can’t hold up the evolution of the game because of our outdated and stubborn understandings of what may possibly become dangerous.”
The above statement is a quote from a umpire who posted on an Internet hockey forum during a discussion about umpire positioning and shared responsibilities between umpires when a scoop stroke (aerial pass) was made, and also the position from which any free awarded for dangerous play should be taken. I agree that the game should be allowed evolve tactically but I do not agree that our understanding of potentially dangerous actions is outdated. I do think the current Rules and Rule Guidance are inadequate – but they (sic) always have been.
The wording of the Rule did not change greatly the last time it was amended in 2004 when the rulebook was reformatted; since that date it had been:-
9.10 Players must not approach within 5 metres of an opponent receiving a falling raised ball until it has been received, controlled and is on the ground.
The initial receiver has a right to the ball. If it is not clear which player is the initial receiver, the player of the team which raised the ball must allow the opponent to receive it.
There is no mention of danger in either the Rule or the Rule Guidance; to find that it is necessary to go back to a time when there was a separate section called Interpretation in the back of the rulebook – and even then the nature of the danger is not identified. At that time all actions concerning the lifting of the ball were dealt with under one Rule which had a number of clauses. The relevant ones were:-
13.1.3 Raised ball
A player shall not:
c. approach within 5 metres of a player receiving a falling raised ball until it has been played and is on the ground
d. raise the ball at another player.
. The relevant clause (c) is identical to the current Rule. The (much reduced) Rule Guidance is taken from the previous Interpretation – which is here considerably shortened for brevity – leaving out raising the ball 1) over a prone opponent, 2) off a goalkeeper’s pads, 3) into the circle, 4) the flick shot at penalty corner etc.
Interpretation scoop The ball raised over a distance using a flick or scoop action must be judged for actual or potential danger: - where the ball is played - during flight - where the ball lands. The offence should be penalised where the danger occurs, not necessarily where the ball was originally played: - when the danger occurs where the ball was played, the penalty must be taken there; - when the danger occurs during the flight of the ball, the penalty should be taken from where the ball was originally played; - when a player of either team behaves in a dangerous manner in the area of the flight of the ball, the penalty must be applied where the player is positioned; - when the danger occurs where the ball lands, the penalty must be taken there.
Any flick or scoop made with an oncoming opponent within 5 metres is almost certainly dangerous and should be penalised.
The raised ball which is played into open space or to alone player should not be penalised unless dangerous.
Receiving player A player receiving a raised ball must be given the opportunity to play it safely. If a player flicks or scoops the ball safely into free space and another player of the same team and an opponent reach the area where the ball will land at the same time, then the player of the team which played the ball shall give the opponent time and space to bring the ball under control.
Defenders do not have a right to the ball if an attacker is the initial receiver.
If the receiving player is clear of other players at the time the ball is raised, no players of the opposing team should approach within 5 metres until the ball has been received, controlled and is on the ground.
**************************
The last clause above, which I will come back to, and these three cause some difficulty:-
- when the danger occurs during the flight of the ball, the penalty should be taken from where the ball was originally played;
There appears to be conflict between that statement and these two:-
- when a player of either team behaves in a dangerous manner in the area of the flight of the ball, the penalty must be applied where the player is positioned;
- when the danger occurs where the ball lands, the penalty must be taken there.
but it may be resolved by considering danger caused by the player who raised the ball and then danger caused by other players.
Any player other than the player who raised the ball who attempted to play at a ball above shoulder height would have been guilty of an offence so it is only necessary (in the absence of dangerous play by others) to consider what would have been dangerous play by the player who raised the ball. We are given one instance – raising the ball at a player was against the Rules and certainly dangerous play if the other player was within 5m. ‘Considered dangerous’ is still the case if the ball is raised at a player within 5m (see Guidance to Rule 9.9) – so that understanding is not ‘outdated’.
The other potential cause of dangerous play (we can deduce from the text If the receiving player is clear of other players at the time the ball is raised) was to raise the ball into an area where opposing players were already within 5m of each other and likely to contest for the ball, which brings us back to this:-
If the receiving player is clear of other players at the time the ball is raised, no players of the opposing team should approach within 5 metres until the ball has been received, controlled and is on the ground.
Umpires reasoned (were told) that if a player scooped the ball to land among player who were already closer than 5m at the time the ball was raised the player who raised the ball was playing the ball in a way that was likely to lead to dangerous play – so they penalised when the ball was still in flight and took the ball back to the place from which it was raised, which concurs with this:-
- when the danger occurs during the flight of the ball, the penalty should be taken from where the ball was originally played;
There are however some problems with this approach. If the ball is scooped towards players who may contest for it and the players from the same team as the scooper move away from the opposing receiving player and allow her/him to receive the ball without interference, there is no danger, no disadvantage (other than a loss of ‘ground’) and so no reason to interrupt the game to penalise. It is therefore incorrect to penalise the offence (play leading to dangerous play) immediately the ball is scooped up so that it may land among contesting players – which is what was common umpiring practice some years ago complying with the previous “at the time the ball was raised“. and “likely to lead to dangerous play“
The umpire needs to wait to see if the players close to the opposing receiver (when the fact is identified) respond by allowing that receiver sufficient time and space. (This is a personal interpretation because the Rule only forbids approach and does not demand retreat if opposing players are already within 5m – something the FIH Rules Committee could take a look at).
There may however come a point in time, in the flight of the falling ball, when it will be clear that the receiver has not been given sufficient space and there is no longer time for opponents to move away. This time must be when the ball is still beyond the stick playing distance of players in the landing zone, because to leave a decision any longer could be to allow a potentially dangerous situation to become actually dangerous, and it is no good to expect or hope that players will ‘be sensible’ (they have not after all had the sense to move away earlier while the ball was in flight) and not swing at the ball while it is still in the air. The whistle needs to be blown early enough so that players have time to hear it and respond to it before they attempt to play at the falling ball – so probably when the ball is still at least 5m off the ground. The umpire is then still ‘blowing’ according to this in the previous version of the Rule:-
- when the danger occurs during the flight of the ball, the penalty should be taken from where the ball was originally played;
but could also applying this -
- when a player of either team behaves in a dangerous manner in the area of the flight of the ball, the penalty must be applied where the player is positioned;.
that position could be where the ball is landing (rather than where it landed) - when the danger occurs where the ball lands, the penalty must be taken there.(which would be too late to avert dangerous play if there were contesting players beneath a falling ball) It not difficult to see why all these clauses were removed completely, but amendment would probably have been the better option.
Not penalising immediately the ball is raised but only when the potential danger (compounded by failure to retreat) becomes highly likely or inevitable, is a matter of timing. This whole issue is about the timing of the blowing of the whistle as potential danger is seen as the ball is coming down. The umpire should allow players in the landing zone time to comply to the 5m requirement but should not delay too much and allow potential danger to become actual danger.
The incident in the clip below followed an accidental deflection of a hit up off the stick of a defending player – not a intentional scoop into the circle – but it gives an idea of the kind of problems which may (almost inevitably will) arise from the Direct Lift of a free into the circle. Not intervening in good time, changed what could have been a bully or perhaps the award of a free to the attack outside the 23m area into what should have been a penalty stroke for the GB team. (The decision in the match, after a video referral, requested by the Pakistan team, was a free to Pakistan because the England player – clearly the initial receiver – hit the ball at above his shoulder height. The encroaching offence by the defender was overlooked).
An appreciation of the dangers of having players competing for the ball falling onto them from above head height is not an ‘outdated and stubborn understanding of what may possibly become dangerous‘, what has become outdated, and has never been clearly explained, is the need for correct timing of intervention and application of penalty.
The first approach outlined above – when the danger occurs during the flight of the ball, the penalty should be taken from where the ball was originally played; does not satisfy the present common approach, in which danger, once the ball has been raised safely and is in flight, is penalised with a free at the place it occurred, generally where the ball is landing, rather than where it was initially caused (by lifting the ball into a contested area) but I think the present approach to be flawed.
The flaw I see in the current approach is that there is nothing to deter players from scooping the ball into crowded areas and creating potentially dangerous situations, which they then rely on others to rectify- the lifter of the ball has in this case no responsibility for his choice of target (landing) area . Coupled with this is the very lax attitude that has developed to the distance required and to the time allowed to receivers to control the ball to ground (both Rule requirements which could be looked at afresh to ‘evolve’ the game – develop it tactically). The combination of these factors gives a decided advantage, I think an unfair advantage, to teams who use this tactic to gain ground and ‘overload’ the ball at the site of the awarded free – encroaching to within 5m of receiver while the ball is still in the air is a deliberate tactic and the award of a free is not a deterrent , not in fact a penalty, it is the minimum aim of such tactics. (Greater advantage can be gained if the defending receiver ‘fluffs’ the attempt to control the ball to ground, especially if he deflects it into the path of a closing or wide opponent).
There are several possible receiving/contesting scenarios when a ball is scooped over a long distance, in the majority of them, if there is a dangerous play offence, the free should be taken at or close to where the ball was landing, but where the ball is flighted to land in an already contested area, then the action of the player who raises the ball is the initial cause of potential danger, “play leading to dangerous play” (or the preferable “play likely to lead to dangerous play”) ; players on the lifter’s team who close on the receiver or do not give space are a secondary or compounding factor (and commit a second offence). I believe that in these circumstances a free ought to be awarded where the ball was raised, the first offence being penalised first. Nothing in the Rules of Hockey contradicts this view but nothing now supports it (as previously was the case): “simplification and clarification” have led to a lack of clear guidance.
***********************************
A different issue.
This:- when a player of either team behaves in a dangerous manner in the area of the flight of the ball, the penalty must be applied where the player is positioned;
It is understandable that a player who is positioned in clear space, more than 5m from opponents or opponent’s goal side of opponents and on the run towards the goal, is upset to be penalised for playing at the ball above shoulder height in order to control it into possession. It’s an offence, but why? The disadvantage to opponents is clear, but there is no element of danger in such action and the game would be improved by allowing such play. For safety a line has to be drawn at close players contesting for the ball while it is in the air above shoulder height, but unnecessary restrictions should be removed.
Two areas to sort out: the timing of the whistle when a ball is falling into a contested area and the unnecessary penalising of players who take the ball down safely from above shoulder height in clear space – the latter could be said to penalised unnecessarily at present because of “a stubborn and outdated understanding of what may possibly become dangerous” but that is not syntax I would use.
I always included the suggestion when advocating the Direct Lift that the opponent’s circle should be excluded as a target area because of the possibility of attempts by attackers to volley the ball towards the goal. The addition of the facility to lift the ball directly from a free awarded outside the opposing 23m area to land in the circle, which is now part of a Mandatory Experiment, will I believe lead to ‘interesting’ ramifications. We shall no doubt shortly see.
This is a clip from an EHL game, where controlling the ball to ground from above shoulder height is being experimented with. The umpire awarded a goal from this shot but I think that this type of play should not be acceptable in any level of the game.
Here again (below) there is a timing issue. A goal cannot be awarded because the German player played the ball from above his shoulder height – but prior to that he was illegally encroached upon by two, possibly three, Australian players, before the ball was controlled to ground. The umpire should have been considering the award of a penalty stroke for the encroaching of the goalkeeper or a penalty corner for the encroaching of the Australian player closing from behind (who was within 5m of the receiving player before the ball was in the circle). The umpire was possibly trying to play advantage but in a strongly contested situation, where the alternative was a probable penalty stroke and danger was likely (in the ‘still’ below the German player has yet to play the ball), that was probably the wrong thing to do.
