The Umpire Manager’s Briefing, for Umpires at FIH Tournaments, takes the place of the Rules of Hockey.
(a document that should still be contained within the Rules Of Hockey, from where it originated)
What the existing interpretations are is not mentioned, so that advice reads like an Article of Faith (i.e. as if to say No matter what the text may be it supports our interpretation – the actual wording is irrelevant). We can possibly get some idea of the nature of this interpretation if we look at an instruction to Level One Umpiring candidates published in a UK County Hockey Association Handbook in 2010.
The notes to the foot body rule 9.11 say it is an offence ‘only’ when contact with the ball is ‘voluntary’, but in practice an accidental contact that alters the balance of play is just as much an offence as deliberately playing with foot or body. (my bold)
This is just one example of interpreting rules consistently with your partner and with other umpires the teams will have. Sometimes their interpretation will differ from how the rule seems, to you, to read. But you must umpire play their way, and never apply your own version. If that leaves you uncomfortable then a bit of lateral thinking should soon enough make the same sense of it for you as it does for everyone else.
That interpretation of the Rule Guidance given to Rule 9.11 in the Rules of Hockey, which this umpire coach referred to as “notes”, does indeed differ from how it seems to me to read, it’s a direct contradiction. The instruction to umpire as other umpires are seen to umpire and not to apply “your own version” (use your own understanding of the written Rules and Rule Guidance) is reminiscent of indoctrination or of introduction to a cult. What is the ‘lateral thinking’ required ? “If I want to be accepted and progress I had better do as I am told” ?
It does not matter if one is for or against having a ‘gained benefit clause’, this approach is wrong. The reason we have a FIH Committee charged by the FIH Executive with overseeing Rule amendment, is so that the making of Rule does not get high-jacked by any individual FIH Official or any other group – in fact such unauthorized interference is specifically forbidden by the FIH Executive. What has happened in this case is unacceptable, however, instead of rebuking umpires who refused to respond to changes in the text of the Rule Guidance, the opposite has happened. In 2011, without a hint of shame, the FIH Rules Committee deleted the offence of forcing – declaring such offence can be dealt with by “other Rules” – because , they said, umpires were not penalising the forcing of the ball into the feet of an opponent, it being too difficult to see clear intent, (just as it is (sic) ‘too difficult’ to see intent when a ball is, illegally, intentionally lifted with a hit - but, strangely, intent in the case of a ball/foot contact can be assumed).
Forcing a breach of Rule from an opponent (was from 2011) no longer to be viewed as an offence in itself. But, unless the ball is raised there is now no “other Rule” to forbid the ‘finding of a foot’. The result will likely be an increase in the awarding of penalty corners for ball/foot contacts that forwards have ‘skillfully’ manufactured and a part of hockey Rule – the forbidding of deliberately playing the ball into an opponent’s body – which had been in existence beyond living memory prior to 2011 *, will have been erased.
* For example (from a time when there was also Rule Guidance relating to the gaining of an unfair benefit following an unintentional (or forced) ball/body contact) .
A player shall not:-
(e) play the ball wildly, or play or kick (goalkeepers) the ball in such a way as to be dangerous in itself, or likely to lead to dangerous play, nor play the ball intentionally into any part of an opponent’s body, including the feet and legs
(ii) a player should not be penalised for a rebound when the ball has been propelled straight at him from close quarters by an opponent.
The underlined part of that Rule and Rule Guidance was removed after 2003, presumably because it was too complicated or unclear – but it looks simple and perfectly clear to me. Then (from 2011) playing the ball intentionally into an opponent’s feet and legs, can no longer an offence, because no such offence is described within the Rules of Hockey.
So much for retaining the traditional aspects of the game – a declared aim of the FIH Rules Committee.
The Umpires Managers Briefing for Tournaments currently ’announces’ that there has been no change to the interpretation of a ball hitting the foot, hand or body of a field player and that the text of the Rule “reinforces existing interpretation” (not that umpiring practice is following Rule, which is what Rule application should be doing and the way this ought to be put – Rule should not be following practice, that is the wrong way about – but this is more than a matter of syntax, it is an attitude). Setting out what the ”existing interpretation” actually might be, is thus neatly avoided.
So what if the UMB for International level Umpires is different to the normal Rules of Hockey – does that matter? Yes for two reasons. The first is that Rule Variation for International level matches should be set out in the FIH published Rule Variations – the above variation is not. The second, and by far the more important for the average participant is that umpires of all levels are being actively encouraged to refer to the UMB for useful guidance. There is no reason whatsoever why any useful guidance should not be sanctioned by the FIH Rules Committee and published in the Rules of Hockey.
Why is the UMB divisive? Why is it published at all when all that is in it could (and should) be contained within the rule book?
The UMB extension of the Rule Guidance to the Free Hit has been cut from this article and moved to a new article on this subject.
A pattern of deductive reasoning consisting of two premises and a conclusion – which may be valid or invalid, depending on what conclusion is arrived at by the reasoning of the person giving the conclusion.
Example.
Premise one. All men are mortal.
Premise two. Socrates is a man.
Conclusion. Socrates is mortal.
The premises are offered as true, so the above conclusion could be challenged by a pedant on the grounds that the evidence that Socrates is a man is subjective and unproven even if Socrates asserts ‘himself’ that ‘he’ is a man and this ‘fact’ is by agreed by common consent. This moves the ‘debate’ from one about mortality to another, possibly more ambiguous area, a definition of gender. However in this case the conclusion is not that Socrates is a man – that is given as a premise – but that Socrates is mortal, and that is not in dispute. The syllogism is more accurately set up by replacing the word ‘men’ and ‘man’ in the premises with ‘human being/s’.
Premise one. All human beings are mortal.
Premise two. Socrates is a human being.
Conclusion. Socrates is mortal.
Such adjustments to wording can, if used carefully, point the way to unambiguous and logical rule statements
The problem I invented arose because, in the first premise, ‘men’ may be seen to have been used as a generic term, to denote all human beings (as in mankind), and an ambiguity is created when, in the second premise, ‘man’ appears to be gender specific i.e. to exclude women. Rational people know that women are not immortal either and may also know that the term ‘men’ may have been used in a way that includes ‘women’. (the practice is not unusual in documentation to achieve brevity and clarity; until 2004 the Rules of Hockey used ‘he’ and ‘his’ to also mean ‘she’ and ‘her’) in other words premises that are not stated but are ‘known’ need to be taken into consideration unless this is specifically forbidden. It is often useful to exclude the general ’common sense’ of a premise to achieve a communal sense of the true meaning i.e. agreement and consistency in interpretation using only what is given in text. Only a given premise wording is then initially considered. Additional facts (words) that can be seen by ‘common sense’ to be missing are, in this way, more likely to be noted as missing and included (or at least discussed before) subsequently constructed premises are finalised.
A syllogism can therefore be challenged – said to be invalid- by disputing either of the premises or, if it does not appear to be a logical deduction from accepted premises, the conclusion. In the usual course of conversation or even of writing, the syllogism with which I began the article would not be remarked upon – I got it as the example given in a dictionary definition of a syllogism – but it was possible to make a criticism of it. The syllogism given in the Oxford English Dictionary, with the definition of the word, is much more open to dispute, but that is pointed out in the OED entry with which I began this article, syllogisms may be valid or invalid. E.g:-
All dogs are animals
All animals have four legs
Therefore all dogs have four legs.
The conclusion would not be disputed by any reasonable person (who knew what a dog was) but the second premise certainly could be – dolphins and apes are but two examples of species of animal that do not have four legs. The conclusion does not follow from the premise ”Some animals have four legs” and the conclusion “Some dogs have four legs” is obviously incorrect. Presenting one true and one false premise together with an obviously true conclusion is a ‘technique’ often used to get a very dubious premise ‘accepted’. The weak premise is ‘accepted’ without much thought because the other statements are so obviously correct.
The point I am making is that the given premises, as well as the ‘deducted’ conclusion, need to be critically examined when someone is trying to ‘prove’ a point by using a syllogism – or , beyond that, using the conclusions of two syllogisms as the premises of a third…. and so on. Obviously where ‘proofs’ are being demonstrated statements that are known to be fallacious should not be accepted as premises (or accepted only as a way of disproving). The finding of flaws in premises need not be taken to the point where further criticism of the semantics or syntax would be absolutely impossible, but obvious contradictions of terms, potential ambiguities in wording, etc. should be pointed out and clarified or corrected when reasonable conclusions are looked for.
The Socrates syllogism has reasonable premises and conclusion and perhaps only a pedant would call it invalid, the one about dogs is clearly an invalid syllogism from the given premises, even if all dogs are animals and all normal dogs have four legs, because the second of the two premises cannot by itself , due to known fallacy, lead to the given conclusion and for the same reason does not assist its partner to do so.
Discussions concerning the Rules of Hockey contain many assertions and conclusions which are seemingly (or at first sight) based on deductive reasoning, but are invalid because one or more of the premises offered are fallacious or ambiguous (open to misinterpretation and therefore to misapplication), or the conclusions are not logical (rational) deductions if one or both the premises are accepted as true.
The topic. Voluntarily making body contact with the ball.
In 2004 the HRB (FIH Rules Committee) changed the Rule Guidance embedded in the ball body contact Rule from :-
13.1.2 Use of body, hands, feet by players other than goal-keepers
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.
To this
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.
removing the word ‘intentionally’ from the Rule.
Then in 2007 the word ‘voluntarily’ was added to the Rule Guidance and ‘gains benefit’ was removed. (*) Which gives the current (2013) 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.
It was not revealed why ‘intentionally’ was dropped from the Rule or why a few years later ‘voluntarily’ was added to the Rule Guidance. Perhaps it was because dropping ‘intentionally’ completely was later considered to have been too big a step or a mistake and ‘voluntarily’ was thought a suitable synonym to replace it without loss of ‘face’. Who knows? But there was a problem; umpires had quickly, post 2004, become accustomed to penalising any and all ball/body contact (some had always done so because the fact of such contact is a very easy objective criteria, it requires observation but little judgement) and they were reluctant to go back to the difficulty and uncertainty of looking for intention or voluntary contact.
(*) Three weeks after the activation date of the 2007- 09 Rules of Hockey a ‘note’ was posted on the FIH website which announce that ‘gains benefit’ would continue to apply as it had in 2006, so ‘gains benefit’ was not in effect deleted until January 2009 i.e. on issue of the 2009-11 Rules of Hockey sans ‘gained benefit’ or any substitute for it. ‘Gains benefit’ was not restored in 2011-13 and has not been restored to the current Rules 2013 – 15.
The Discussion
Debate about the meaning of ‘voluntarily’ resulted in the opinions below – expressed over two separate threads, made six months apart, on a hockey related website – from an International level umpire, who uses the tag Bondy. Aside from the opening post I have reproduced only the posts that Bondy put up – most of them contain quotes in italics from other contributors which help a little to hang them together.
The first thread, from November 2011, was entitled Incidental foot.
JMZevans (The opening post)
I have scanned through the forum for some clarity on an old classic but would like to confirm a decision from the weekend. Situation as follows:
Attacker driving along the baseline and hits the ball towards the top of the D. Near the top it hits a defenders foot. Had the defender missed it then the ball would have travelled uninterrupted all the way to the sideline. Attackers shout for a PC, defenders shout that the ball would have gone off and would have been their side line ball.
Which is the correct decision??
.
Bondy
redumpire said: I assumed the ball hadn’t gone off the sideline and was still with the defender whose foot it had hit, in which case it’s play on…
Surely this would be a PC? It hit the defender’s foot, and he gained possession because of it. I know that he would have had the sideline hit, had it not hit his foot – but in the time that it takes for the ball to get to the sideline and for the defender to set up to take the hit, the attackers would have had the opportunity to set up their press. To me, that means that the defender has gained advantage from the foot in the circle, therefore you’ve got no option but to award a PC.
.
Bondy
redumpire said: Fair point, Bondy; let’s put it another way. If the ball hit a player’s foot somewhere near the middle of the pitch as the ball was on a trajectory to go over the sideline and that player was in acres of space, would you award a FH? I wouldn’t; so why would I award a PC?
I completely agree that if you wouldn’t award a FH in midfield, you shouldn’t award a PC, but I believe that it has to be a FH. The defender is advantaged by getting the ball ‘right now’ in central field position, instead of getting a sideline hit in a few seconds, which would give the opposition time to set up a defensive press.
deegum said: Sorry alex, but Justin has said, there has been no offence at all. Therefore no FHA, PC, PS or anything. In fact the defence might sometimes gain an advantage,, but play on, still no offence.
I honestly don’t see how there’s no offence here – am I missing something that everyone else is thinking? The defender has stopped the ball with his foot, and in doing so, has gained an advantage (and therefore disadvantaged the opposition). Offence by the defender. It happens to be in the circle, so it’s a PC.
To those who say that the defender hasn’t ‘voluntarily’ stopped the ball with his foot, he’s at least 15m from where the ball was hit, and one would assume he’s watching the ball. Therefore he’s had plenty of time to get out of the way, or use his stick to trap it… and because he’s chosen to do neither, it’s a voluntary (subtle difference from ‘intentional’) use of the foot. I know it’s a horrible soft PC, but I honestly think that you have to give it.
.
Bondy
redumpire said: We’ft have to have a good pre-match chat if ever we umpire together,,, or, you’l! have to change your views if you’re ever umpiring when I’m TD !!
I think we should just hope that the defenders know how to trap!!
Incidentally – Diligent, I’m right with you that if the ball HAD gone out, it’s definitely a sideline hit attack, because hitting the foot has led to the defender losing possession. I don’t believe that there’s any legitimate argument for PC in that situation… as opposed to when it stays in, there are two valid schools of thought (ie, PC or play on) – I’ll argue black and blue that it needs to be a PC, but those who argue play on have also got a valid argument (just slightly less valid, IMHO)
.
Bondy
Hacker said: Bondy, does your decision after if the “foot” happens at the top of the D with no attackers dose {as Diligent says above) or if it’s closer to the goaf line and attackers a bit nearer?
No – because of the foot, the defender gets possession in space and therefore the ability to start a counter-attack, and easily attack down the centre or either side of the field. If it hadn’t hit the foot, they’ve still got possession, but it’s at the sideline, which means that the attackers have extra time to set a press and pressure the defence.
.
The following July there was a discussion about the correct decision if the ball was deliberately played into contact with an opponent and the meaning of the word ‘voluntarily’ was raised again. Bondy had become more extreme in his view and also more certain that he was right to penalise any ball/body contact (unless opponents could play on with advantage - were not disadvantaged ) in spite of the fact that the discussion was about contacts intentionally forced (*) by opponents and ‘gained benefit’ or ‘gained advantage’, which he quotes, had finally ‘disappeared’ from the Rules of Hockey more than three years earlier.
(*) After January 2011 forcing an opponent into a breach of Rule was deleted as an offence in itself.
.
Bondy
I believe that Justin, et al, are confusing “voluntary” and “involuntary” with “unintentional” and “intentional”. To my mind, a foot becomes “voluntary” when a player puts himself in a position where there is the potential that they will play the ball with the foot, ie – a defender comes to tackle an attacker, and ends up stopping the ball with his foot. He hasn’t intentionally done it, but because he’s put himself into position knowing there’s a chance he’ll kick it, it’s voluntary and therefore a free hit attack.
Saying “Well, I tried to stop it hitting my foot because I tried to use my stick to make the tackle/trap/dribble/whatever” doesn’t make it involuntary – you’ve still put yourself in a position where there’s a reasonable chance of the ball hitting you – it’s unintentional, but it’s not involuntary. Frankly, any other interpretation is a fundamental change to the game, and goes against the whole principle that hockey stick and ball game.
I do agree that there’s a reasonable argument that the “find a foot” incidents are being blown incorrectly… but I also think that everyone expects it to be blown that way, and as far as I’m concerned, until a specific directive from FIH that the way it’s being blown is wrong (and the removal of manufactured fouls is a pretty strong indication that that’s not gonna happen any time soon), I’m going to keep givin what everyone’s happy with and not play-ons that everyone thinks are wrong.
From those five posts it is possible to construct a large number of pairs of related premises to construct syllogisms and reach conclusions. The problem will be consistency, because many of the statements Bondy makes are contradicted by others. Even the meaning of ‘everybody’ has changed significantly between first mention and last.
Using directly conflicting pairs is not entirely pointless as it is as useful to know what is not valid as what is. but premises that are different but supportive of each other (or at least not opposed) will also have to be found. The premises and conclusions from opinion and ‘practice’ (player expectation etc.) can then be paired with related phrase statements from the Rules of Hockey. First it is necessary to list individual premises from the statements he made.
That could take a week. It’s an exercise a reader might like to try for themselves. A start could be made by determination of the meaning of the word ‘voluntarily’ in the context of the Rule Guidance, weighed against the asserted ’acceptance of risk’ and the imposition of penalty (How does one justify penalty as a deterrent when the penalised action has been forced?) .
An aside. It needs to be borne in mind that the ball/body contact Rule relates to all ball/body contact, not just to ball contact made with the feet. When assessing ‘acceptance of risk’ and ‘voluntarily’ one has to be aware of the possibility of the sort of incident shown in the video. The defender ’knew’ as he ran towards the ball, that it was possible that the player in possession of the ball would propel it towards his head: would it therefore be reasonable for the umpire to penalise the player hit? Bondy “To my mind, a foot becomes “voluntary” when a player puts himself in a position where there is the potential that they will play the ball with the foot“. Is that reasonable? Is being hit with the ball ‘playing it’ if the contact is not intentional?
What is different about the actions of a defender running towards a player in possession of the ball when the defender is hit by the propelled ball on the head or upper body rather than on the foot? The answer is likely to be “Nothing”, the difference is in the action of the player propelling the ball – he raises it. When is responsibility for his own voluntary action to be accepted by the player propelling the ball? Always? Never? Sometimes? E.g. only outside the shooting circle even if the ball is flicked – a legal stroke in any open play? (The justification for raising a hit at a defender in the circle is often that it is legal to raise a shot hit at the goal – but clearly, for fairness and safety, something more than just the legality of the stroke used is required of the player propelling the ball.) Debate concerning forced ball/foot contact will always tend to shift towards arguments concerning the forcing of self-defence (or endangerment), playing the ball towards an opponent’s head being an extreme example of playing the ball at any part of an opponent. So how about a position, more than 5m from the ball – and possibly in the circle – when a defender is hit on the head with the ball – who is responsible – one player, both, neither?
A dictionary definition:
Voluntary adj.
1. Done or undertaken of one’s own free will: a voluntary decision to leave the job.
2. Acting or done willingly and without constraint or expectation of reward: a voluntary hostage; voluntary community work.
3. Normally controlled by or subject to individual volition: voluntary muscle contractions.
4. Capable of making choices; having the faculty of will.
5. Supported by contributions or charitable donations rather than by government appropriations: voluntary hospitals.
6. Law a. Without legal obligation or consideration: (consideration can be viewed as a legal term for payment; with money or goods or services) a voluntary conveyance of property.
b. Done deliberately; intentionally: voluntary manslaughter.
These adjectives mean being or resulting from one’s own free will.
Voluntary implies the operation of unforced choice: “Ignorance, when it is voluntary, is criminal” (Samuel Johnson).
Intentional applies to something undertaken to further a plan or realize an aim: ”I will abstain from all intentional wrongdoing and harm” (Hippocratic Oath.
Deliberate stresses premeditation and full awareness of the character and consequences of one’s acts: taking deliberate and decisive action.
Wilful implies deliberate, headstrong persistence in a self-determined course of action: a wilful waste of time.
Willing suggests ready or cheerful acquiescence in the proposals or requirements of another: ”The first requisite of a good citizen … is that he shall be able and willing to pull his weight” (Theodore Roosevelt).
What is meant by the asserted ‘acceptance of risk’, and whether or not it is actually relevant to the application of this Rule, might also be considered.
Rules of Hockey. ‘Foot’. Forcing. “Gains benefit”. Confusion and con.
I included these opening posts when posting the entire discussion thread in my article Loopy Vicious Circles http://wp.me/pKOEk-VFon April 1st. but did not comment on the individual posts except to say that some of the contributors seemed to be unaware of the topic of the thread. ‘Distraction techniques’ used in discussion – the politician’s trick of answering the question they have an answer for or want to answer, rather than the questions asked, often done ‘automatically’, as if to a script – is evident here, but I don’t think it is deliberate, the posters are just repeating arguments that those who have previously employed such evasions have ‘trained’ them to give. The same pattern can be seen in umpiring decisions given.
The thread begins with several questions from someone new to umpiring – and maybe even new to field-hockey.
Dan Quinton Can you more experienced umpires please advise on what you look out for and what you do about attackers intentionally pushing the ball onto a defenders foot in the D. I am still struggling with the fact that players always expect a PC to be given if the ball hits a defenders foot in D, whatever happens.
Dan Quinton is the kind of novice that this advice – from a UK County Umpires Association Handbook – was aimed at :-
The notes to the foot body rule 9.11 say it is an offence ‘only’ when contact with the ball is ‘voluntary’, but in practice an accidental contact that alters the balance of play is just as much an offence as deliberately playing with foot or body.
This is just one example of interpreting rules consistently with your partner and with other umpires the teams will have. Sometimes their interpretation will differ from how the rule seems, to you, to read. But you must umpire play their way, and never apply your own version. If that leaves you uncomfortable then a bit of lateral thinking should soon enough make the same sense of it for you as it does for everyone else.
That advice is pernicious nonsense but it is typical of the kind of instruction given to novice umpires, especially young ones, by umpire coaches from their local umpiring associations. The correct advice would be to get to know and understand the Rule and Rule Guidance as given in the rule book and to apply it literally as written. Those who would react with feigned horror at such an idea and point out the many flaws there are in the published Rules of Hockey, might then do something to address such flaws, instead of dismissing the parts that do not fit with their ‘personal philosophy’ of how hockey should be both governed and umpired – their own ‘interpretations’ (which are, of course, in the opinion of these umpires, far superior to the Rule and Rule Guidance published by the FIH Rules Committee) . The author of the above rubbish regularly posts on a hockey related website that umpires commonly allow play to continue when there is an unintentional foot/ball contact – a view at odds with what he has been coaching – because ‘in practice’ any foot/ball contact will be assumed to alter the balance of play in some way .
kaiwawaoThe simple answer is that you can’t do anything about the “manufactured foul” as the rule against it was deleted a little while back. Your only consideration now is whether there was any danger – you cannot penalise an attacker for putting the ball onto a foot in the D.
That is exactly the situation but then kaiwawao continues…
A slightly longer view I would add that is yes, you can certainly argue for a play on or no foul especially if the ball was going to go out of play were it not for the contact. Indeed if it does go out anyway you could then give a LC but you’d struggle to convince most players at most levels to READ the rules let alone know all the amendments that have happened in the years since they last looked at the book so your life will be easier to give a PC
Probably without noticing that he has done so, he has changed the subject being discussed – which was the forcing of a ball/foot contact onto an opponent by a player in possession of the ball – and writes about ‘arguing’ for “play-on – no offence” after the ball has hit the defender’s foot, the ‘no offence’ he is referring to being the foot/ball contact, not the forcing action of the player who was in possession of the ball.
The expectation of players that is referred to in the opening post is that any ball/foot contact will be penalised as an offence; but who, it must be asked, is the umpire ‘arguing’ with – if not himself. What has the expectation of players to do with giving the correct decision? Why worry about the expectation of players if one is convinced that they don’t know the Rules ? (That players do not know the Rules is – an often inaccurate – slur on players that umpires commonly and casually repeat, despite those same umpires ignoring much of the published Rules of Hockey and substituting their own ‘common sense’ so that players cannot ‘know’ what ‘rules’ are being applied.) Who creates the expectation of players but umpires? Players come to expect umpires to do as other umpires have done – the advice quoted from the hand-book above is for umpires to do just that – and not to try to make their own sense of what is given in the rule book.
I’m sure there are plenty of umpires who consider the removal unfortunate due to the the way it has legitimised the lazy players “winning” a PC because they “skilfully” managed to put the ball onto the foot of a defender when a pass or a shot would be more attractive or even more logical play.
But these umpires do not, it appears, act on their considered opinion. The removal of forcing as an offence has not legitimized the ‘winning’ of a penalty corner by the forcing of a foot contact by an opponent. The forcing of the contact may not be an offence in itself (but may also be dangerous play) , but the fact that the contact is forced must mean that the foot/ball was not made voluntarily by the player hit and therefore cannot be an offence by the player hit. The removal of forcing as an offence does not ‘automatically’ convert all forced ball/foot contact into an offence by the player hit with the ball, it simply removes the previous facility to penalise a player forcing such a contact. The two incidents – forcing and being hit with the ball – are different and separate and by different players, in fact opposed competitors.
HackerNot sure I would agree. For me if there is no movement by the defender to actively use their foor OR if the defender hasn’t IMO deliberately position their feet to block the ball AND there is no attacker positioned to play the ball (it’s no a legitimate pass) then its play on. I was quite a heavy user of manufactured foul so mourn its passing).
Hacker continues along the path the discussion has been diverted onto. He proposes several conditions to be met if the defender is not to be penalised (if the ball has been intentionally forced onto the defender’s foot by an attacker). That forcing was previously an offence by a player in possession of the ball has been overlooked – the part in brackets is omitted from thinking. I don’t believe this is intentional in this case, it’s just habit. Umpires habitually regard any foot/ball contact as an offence and a potential need for penalty. He doesn’t directly mention ‘gains benefit’ but writes of the absence of an attacker positioned to play the ball and as if intentionally forcing the ball into the foot of a defender could at the same time be regarded as a legitimate attempt to make a pass (the attacker ‘having (keeping) his cake and eating it’): it can’t be both. The gained benefit exception to the Rule Guidance to Rule 9.11. was in any case deleted several years ago and so the presence or absence of a team-mate of the player forcing a foot contact on the far side of the player hit with the ball is (doubly?) irrelevant. Attempting to pass the ball ‘through’ an opponent is in any case a contradiction in terms – pass being a shortening of by-pass i.e. going around, not ‘through’ – and very poor hockey, ‘passes’ are not made at opponents.
Inverting cause and reallocating blame has become a much used, even overused strategy, there are examples of it within previous issues of the Rules of Hockey and in ‘common practice’. The prime example of such an inversion of a Rule in the Rules of Hockey was the (now deleted) PIT Interpretation of the Obstruction Rule (9.12) which, in a way that was similar to the ‘flip’ from discussing ’forcing’ to discussing a contact offence – seen above – flipped from mention of obstructive actions by a player in possession of the ball to describing actions by a player attempting to tackle for the ball, which would have been more appropriately placed in the following Rule (9.13), (that forbids tackling from a position where physical contact would occur). This interpretation effectively destroyed the Obstruction Rule by distracting attention from the purpose of the Rule, the prohibiting of obstructive actions. The prime example of ‘inversion’ in the ‘common practice’ of umpires, is the unwritten ‘rule’ they have invented that declares an ‘on target’ shot at the goal cannot be considered dangerous play. Both of these inversions have become so ingrained (PIT is still applied even though deleted after 2003) that if umpires are asked to describe circumstances in which they would penalise a shot made at a player defending his team’s goal, made more than 5m from that player, as dangerous play or to describe circumstances of ball shielding – without physical contact – which they would penalise as Obstruction, they have no reply. In these areas umpires are no longer making or even attempting to make decisions about dangerous play and obstruction, they simply don’t see offences.
Dan Quinton thanks kaiwawao – as someone relatively new to umpiring (me that is) are you saying that there used to be a rule to prevent ‘manufactured fouls’ in the D? When and why was it removed? I dont see the logic as it seems so easy to do in the D and get a short for nothing.
When? Officially in 2011. Why? Because for some years the forcing of a foot contact was ignored; incredibly the FIH RC amended (deleted) Rule to follow ‘practice’. Why the ‘practice’? It is much easier to make the observation “Did the ball hit a foot?” than the judgement “Did the player in possession of the ball propel the ball into his opponent’s foot intentionally?” Once the habit of penalising foot/ball contact became established the reasons for doing so were simply ‘forgotten’, so even obviously forced contact resulted in the player hit with the ball being penalised as a matter of established practice and player expectation. ”An ‘on target’ shot at goal cannot be dangerous” is just an extension of the same idea – with a few added ‘bells and whistles’ such as ‘accepting risk’, ‘positioning with intent’ ‘causing danger by positioning’ ‘intent to use the body if the ball is missed with the stick’ – any excuse to avoid examining the actions and intent of the player who raised the ball and endangered an opponent by doing so. Motive? More penalty corners, more goals.
I have picked out one other post because it gives another ‘slant’ to the penalising of offences.
ToPpS I know at tournaments, we’re briefed that attackers have to “EARN” their short corners! As other members have pointed out, if the the defender has gained an advantage from having the ball touch their foot in the circle/D, then it’s a short corner. If they have NOT gained an advantage then it’s a play on.
Granted you need either the experience or the confidence (balls) to sell that to the players, as they are conditioned to expect the short corner. Blow it, don’t blow it but be consistent in your decisions throughout the match and you should be fine.
As the others have done, ToPps ignores the topic of the thread and looks instead to find an offence in the foot/ball contact and does so via the long deleted ‘gains benefit exception to the Rule Guidance to Rule 9.11‘. He also goes along with the strange notion that Rule compliant decisions would have to be ‘sold’ to players whom other umpires have ‘trained’ to expect something else: as kaiwawao noted, it is much easier to do what is expected (in this case award a penalty corner, even if it is completely wrong). The slant that ToPps introduces – from briefing he has received – is the ‘earning’ of a penalty. What an Umpire Coach should be conveying to candidate umpires is that where an advantage can be played it should be played, so players should not, as they commonly do, just shove the ball into the foot of an opponent and then immediately stop playing, assuming the ‘automatic’ penalty ‘won’. A penalty is in any case a penalty against the team of a player who has committed an offence, it is not a reward given to and certainly not ’earned’ by an action of the opposing team. The deletion of forcing as an offence in its own right has ‘dented’ that principle, but it still holds true: penalties should not be regarded as rewards and ‘played for’ or ‘created’. Umpires should not allow themselves to be ‘conned’ in this way, even if it is easy to ‘go along’ with the con and they are expected by ‘everybody’ to do so for the sake of consistency.
That umpires did consistently ignore forcing and still ignore obstructive ball shielding, but still insist on penalising unintentional ball/body contact, is just a historical accident, doing as other umpires have done and are doing; ‘common practice’ could just as easily been the opposite had a lead been given in the opposite direction.
Discussion in ‘Umpiring Corner’ started by Cookie,Mar 6, 2013.
Cookie
I have a feeling this may have been discussed but i couldn’t find it.
In the guidance to 13.3l it talks about if a defender is within 5m of the first shot at a PC and is hit below the knee its another PC and if above the knee its FHD.
My question is whether that is really meant to cover the runner at the top of the circle – or does it apply to the first shot if it is less than 5m from goal.
So I actually had the scenario on Saturday where a scrappy PC resulted in the first shot being a flick from about 4 yards out which hit a defender in his midriff. He was just off the line and so i am asking should that be FHD under the guidance or PS?
Similarly had it hit him below the knee then a strict reading of the guidance would suggest its a PC and not a PS – which surely can’t be intended.
jayjay
yes, this is really meant to be in reference to the first runner, though you are right that that isn’t actually specifically said. the idea behind this guidance is that a ball which strikes someone above the knees who is closer than 5 metres to the taker is supposedly going over the goal, rather than travelling on a path that would score a goal.
in your situation you should simply consider danger. and the guidance of one rule does not overrule the text of the rule of another. so if it hit his feet on the line and stopped the probable scoring (or actually the certain scoring of a goal, barring a dog materialising out of thin air on the line) of a goal, that that should be a PS, in accordance with 12.4 a. no doubt the usual suspects will tell you to simply “play on” as the person didnt stop the ball with their body “voluntarily”. just apply common sense to the situation and you’ll be fine.
*********************
I am not one of the usual suspects, I am guilty as charged, but not only would I say that there was no offence by the defender, if the contact was not made “voluntarily”, I would also say the first instance described was in any event a dangerous play offence by the attacker. I would add that in the case of a hit below the knee, even thought there is a very obvious benefit gained by the defender for his team – i.e. preventing the ball entering the goal, it is not now possible to invoke the ‘gained benefit exception to “not done voluntarily” because that exception has been deleted.
There should of course be a ‘gains unfair advantage exception’ when a shot is not dangerous according to Rule 13.3.l. or Rules 9.8 and 9.9 – but there isn’t – “them’s the Rules as they are written in 2013″. ”Disadvantaged opponents” is of course only applicable when there has been an offence, the competitors in a hockey match spend the entire game legitimately trying to disadvantage each other. Disadvantaging an opponent is not of it self either a breach of Rule or an offence.
The assertion that Rule 13.3.l is meant to be in reference only to a ball propelled at a first runner must be rejected. There is no freedom for the attackers in Rule 13,3,k to strike a first hit shot as high as they wish if it is not struck at or past an out-running defender – a pass to the injector does not free the injector to then make an above knee height hit shot – why should the Rules that pertain in the penalty corner situation be any different for a first shot that is flicked if it is not flicked immediately from the top of the circle but taken closer to the goal and then flicked?
The second incident in the clip below is fairly similar to the one described in the opening post. The shot is made from around 4m and hits the defender just below the throat. Fortunately it was not made at the maximum velocity the shooter was capable of, because it was made off the front foot, and the defender was not injured, but the shot was certainly contrary to the Rules of Hockey – within 5m and raised to above knee height at an opponent. I strongly dispute the assertion or assumption made, that Rule 13.3.l applies only when a ball is propelled at an out-runner near the top of the circle. Penalising an above knee height flick made from within 5m of an opponent is also completely compatible with the Guidance given in Rule 9.9. concerning the raising of the ball with a flick at a player within 5m in any phase of play (no height limit given) - so one way or another, raising the ball at an opponent who is within 5m is, by Rule, considered dangerous play.
The incident in the International Match is a lot more difficult. The shot is legal in that it is made from beyond 5m – so no height limit is aplicable. The defender tries to play the ball with his stick. I see no evidence that he played it with his body intentionally, but voluntarily? Who knows? I am uneasy when I see a penalty stroke given when the circumstances and reasons for awarding it are less than completely clear and the actions of the player hit are not very obviously contrary to Rule. It should be noted that the Australians asked for a video referral citing a dangerously played shot. Ifit were a Rule, that an on target shot at goal could not be dangerous, the match umpire could not reasonably have put the question to the video umpire ( unnecessarily delaying the game) when the answer would have been a foregone conclusion.
The first incident on the video clip, the international Match, is an example where the playing of the ball at an opponent at above elbow height being considered a dangerous play offence would make the task of the umpire easier and the application of Rule fairer. Should the shot be too high and of a velocity that could injure anyone hit with it, it is penalised, if it is not above elbow height (sternum) and is prevented from entering the goal by a field player other than with the stick – penalty stroke.
************************
shipstontkdI take this guidance to mean any runners or defenders in the D, however a defender on the line is a completely different kettle of fish. He/she knows the risks they are taking being on the line and would suggest that they would expect the ps in most cases. As a matter of interest what was your call on Sat?
DavidBurns
shipstontkd said: I take this guidance to mean any runners or defenders in the D, however a defender on the line is a completely different kettle of fish.
So you dont take the guidance to mean ANY runner or defender in the D, a defender on the line is still a defender in the circle.
DavidBurns
jayjay said: yes, this is really meant to be in reference to the first runner,
Do you use this for strikes at goal or just dragflicks?
A hit striking someone just below the knee at 4.5m would more than likely be passing the line above bb height. would you still apply the guidance or blow it for the hit being too high?
Resslys Agent likes this.
Diligent
Blow it: would be too high if it had reached the goal line.
jayjay
DavidBurns: as you can see, this guidance is in regards to rule 13.3 l, thus does not apply to the first shot at goal if this is a hit, that’s covered by 13.3 k. while you could therefore apply it to subsequent shots at goal that are hits, i think the guidance really is only truly useful when applied to the first shot that isnt a hit when a defender is charging it down at the top of the D. for all other situations you can simply use your common sense to apply the danger rule.
DavidBurns
Ta much
deegum
JJ said: no doubt the usual suspects will tell you to simply “play on” as the person didn’t stop the ball with their body “voluntarily”.
This suspect won’t this time.
JayJay said: in your situation you should simply consider danger……,
And
as you can see, this guidance is in regards to rule 13.3 l, thus does not apply to the first shot at goal if this is a hit
JayJay, may I, very politely, with no hostility etc., say you are simply wrong in this case.:
If a defender is within 5m of the first shot, and is struck by the ball, no goal can be scored. regardless of how long after the ball is injected it is taken, or the type of stroke, or from how far out from goal, or how hard, or soft, or how high, or low, the contact is. [Retake PC or FHD are the options]
13.3.l lf 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…
Plain unambiguous statement that could hardly be any clearer, a statement that in no way modifies the requirements or Guidance of 13.3.k
From the OP
first shot being a flick from about 4 yards out which hit a defender in his midriff.
There’s also rule 9.9
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
Multiple posts merged by moderator – Deegum please try to sort out your browser problem.
Resslys Agent
Going against guidance and using triganometry, if it hits below shin pad within 5 from a at the top of the D from a shot that is hit, then chances are it is going above the 18 inches of the backboard!
However, as we can’t always determine speed which will affect balls trajectory then we should use the guidance.
Diligent
Just as plain and unambiguous a statement is the note to 13.3k:
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…
It might strike a defender below the knee, but if it was rising to cross the line above 460mm, that’s a FHD.
deegum
Sorry about the ” multiple posts” folks. They didn’t show up at my end, simply disappeared into the ether, I didn’t know I had that particular problem.
jayjay
deegum, i was simply making the point that if its a hit, we apply the guidance for what happens when the first shot at goal at a PC is a hit, and when its a flick, we apply the guidance of what happens when the first shot at goal at a PC is a flick. seemed simple enough to me.
you’ll find i was in no way making a reference towards the scenario in the OP, as i had already said, regard danger.
*********************
The two questions:-
He was just off the line and so i am asking should that be FHD under the guidance or PS?
Answer Free ball to defence for dangerous play, there is no justification whatsoever for a penalty stroke.
Similarly had it hit him below the knee then a strict reading of the guidance would suggest its a PC and not a PS – which surely can’t be intended.
Answer. During a penalty corner the Rules clearly mandate the award of another penalty corner if a defender is hit below the knee with a shot taken from less than 5m.
In open play “Play on” – there are reasonable grounds to penalise when the shot is a second or subsequent shot or is made in open play, even when the ball/body contact was accidental and unavoidable by the defender, a goal has been prevented by illicit means (an action that would be an offence if done intentionally), but in the absence of intention and of a gains benefit exception to the ‘voluntarily’ Guidance, there no longer exists a Rule justification to do so. Someone ought to inform the FIH RC: perhaps a National Umpiring Association should do that. It is not reasonable for umpires to be substituting their ‘common sense’ for Rule six years after a deletion has thrown up such a frequently occurring problem. But the last thing wanted is a return to the ‘blanket’ “gained benefit” where every ball/body contact is assumed to be of benefit or to disadvantage opponents and therefore open to penalty – in fact it would be better not to penalise foot/ball contact at all than to return to a situation where an umpire can find reason to penalise all such contacts, because many would do just that – some still do - thus encouraging attackers to force such contacts (especially as there is now no Rule which specifically forbids the forcing of a ball/body contact onto an opponent if the ball is not played in a dangerous way i.e. the ball is played into an opponent’s feet).
It is fair that the forcing of a ball/foot contact be no longer regarded as an offence if – and only if – foot/ball contact be no longer regarded as an offence. This arrangement makes intent irrelevant. That might be workable with a ‘gained unfair advantage exception’, applicable only when a certain goal was prevented after a legal (non dangerous) shot or a player in possession of the ball made foot contact with it. Dangerous play that results in ball/body contact by an opponent should of course be penalised as dangerous play – that is not happening at the moment when the dangerous play (a raised ball) is a shot at (or ‘through’) field-players defending their own goal, often not even, as can be seen in the video example, when the criterion – above knee height at an opponent within 5m – clearly applies.
Field Hockey Rules. Penalty Corner First Shot. Dangerous Play. Penalties.An odd set of questions I found on a hockey web-site.
In the guidance to 13.3l it talks about if a defender is within 5m of the first shot at a PC and is hit below the knee its another PC and if above the knee its FHD.My question is whether that is really meant to cover the runner at the top of the circle – or does it apply to the first shot if it is less than 5m from goal.So I actually had the scenario on Saturday where a scrappy PC resulted in the first shot being a flick from about 4 yards out which hit a defender in his midriff. He was just off the line and so i am asking should that be FHD under the guidance or PS?Similarly had it hit him below the knee then a strict reading of the guidance would suggest its a PC and not a PS – which surely can’t be intended.
To take the opening statement and the questions one at a time.In the guidance to 13.3l it talks about if a defender is within 5m of the first shot at a PC and is hit below the knee its another PC and if above the knee its FHD.This is the Rule relating to the conduct of a penalty corner. Yes that is what is written in this Rule. It was drafted in a ‘knee jerk’ response prior to the Athens Olympics, to the tactics of the Koreans for the defence of the drag-flick shot at a penalty corner. At the time it was not legal for a field player to defend a shot on goal at above should height with the stick, so the Koreans tried to prevent an on target shot by blocking it with their bodies, running out in a group of three and sliding bodily into the ball and the path of the ball without attempting to use their sticks at all. It was a stupid and reckless tactic and players were injured but it worked sometimes.. I call the Rule Guidance created in response to this defensive tactic ’knee-jerk’ because it was unnecessary and because the consequences of it were not thought through. It was unnecessary because the umpires involved in officiating the games where the tactic was first employed should have dealt with it with the award of a penalty stroke and yellow cards – and that would have been the end of it.. One consequences of the new Guidance was to label all defending players running from the goal towards the ball at the top of the circle ’Suicide runners” – a term which was used to justify the notion that a player hit with a raised ball was entirely to blame for being hit with a deliberately raised shot. Another, was to plant the idea that running from inside the goal towards the ball, and possibly along the line a shot at the goal could be made, was an offence. I heard that view given in television commentary by an International player during the 2010 World Cup. The combination of those two inventions has since ‘evolved’, without any input at all from the HRB / FIH Rules Committee, to the notion that an on target shot at the goal cannot be dangerous play – but the Guidance that a first shot at a penalty corner that hits a defender above the knee must result in the shooter being penalised for dangerous play causes some difficulty with that idea – so the question now arises (above) : is that Guidance only to do with an out-runner who is within 5m of the ball ?.By not specifying that the new Guidance is about an out-runner being struck with the ball (and how precisely would that be done, if there had been any movement from the player hit off the goal-line and towards the ball?) and mandating the award of a penalty corner if a defender is hit below the knee with a first shot at a penalty corner, the FIH Rules Committee (at the time the HRB) have excluded the possibility of the award of a penalty stroke.. That said, the removal of the gains benefit exception clause taken together with the fact that an unintentional ball/body contact is not an offence – even if it is a breach of Rule (Guidance Rule 9.11 and Penalties Advantage), would make the award of a penalty stroke incorrect, no matter which player was hit an out-runner or a ‘post-man’, unless the body/ball contact was clearly intentional on the part of the defender. This may not be the intended result of the deleting of one Rule Guidance and the alteration of another but it is the logical consequence of it..Any playing of the ball into the body of a defender at above knee height and from within 5m is dangerous play, period, which answers this question.where a scrappy PC resulted in the first shot being a flick from about 4 yards out which hit a defender in his midriff. He was just off the line and so i am asking should that be FHD under the guidance or PS?. There should be no possibility that this action by a shooter should result in the award penalty stroke – but incredibly it usually does or almost as bad, play is allowed to continue if that is of adavantage to the attacking side – the team that offended..Now this:- Similarly had it hit him (a player just off the goal-line) below the knee then a strict reading of the guidance would suggest its a PC and not a PS – which surely can’t be intended.If what is currently written in the rule book is followed a defender who is hit with the ball without intending to be so hit has committed no offence (an action that may be penalised by an umpire). But since 2004 according to what is written under Penalties. Advantage in the Rules of Hockey :- 12.1 Advantage : a penalty is awarded only when a player or team has been disadvantaged by an opponent breaking the Rules.If awarding a penalty is not an advantage to the team which did not break the Rules, play must continue.
penalty may therefore follow a breaking of the Rules; but why then point out in the Guidance to Rule 9.11. that a ball/body contact is only an offence if it is made voluntarily, if that has no bearing on whether or not an umpire should penalise an accidental or forced contact? This really must be sorted out, umpires should not have to choose which of several apparently conflicting sets of Guidance to follow from Conduct of Play, Penalties Penalty Corner and Penalties Advantage. Some ‘solve’ the problem by always penalising the player hit, very few even consider penalising the player who most probably caused the ball/body contact – the player who propelled the raised ball. A start could be made by declaring that, subject to dangerous, intimidating or reckless play on the part of a shooter, any contact with the ball by a defending field player which is made below the knee and directly prevents the ball crossing the goal-line should be penalised with a penalty stroke. That action has been penalised in that way for decades – let us have it in writing. It was considered possible to mandate a penalty corner for a no fault contact with the ball at below knee height, it is certainly possible to mandate a penalty stroke for a similar contact that prevents the ball entering the goal – provided of course there has not been a prior offence by opponents. The real problem is that even close range shots (less than 5m) that have forced evasive action or hit a defender in front of the goal and which have been raised to considerably above knee height, have also resulted in the award of a penalty stroke – and that should not happen. Shots made from within 5m and which are raised to above knee height and hit a defender should remain, as now, dangerous play offences, unless the player hit clearly intentionally moves to play the ball with the body while making no attempt to play it with the stick . The absurd tag ‘Suicide runner’ must not continue to be used to describe an out-runner at a penalty corner and the mandatory award of a penalty corner, if an out running player is hit below the knee from within 5m with a first shot at a penalty corner, should be deleted, not least because it is in conflict with the Guidance to Rule 9.11. but also as has been pointed out in the original question, it is vague. Unless such ball/body contact is intentional on the part of the defender, if at a penalty corner a defender is hit below the knee with the ball play should continue (provided there is no injury to the defender) unless a certain goal has thereby been directly prevented. In other circumstances (a goal is not prevented) if there is injury to the defender and the shooter is not at fault, the incident could be treated as a no fault stoppage (bully) or the alternative I have suggested in another article http://wp.me/pKOEk-Kd may be appropriate. Naturally the peculiar notion that an on target shot at the goal cannot be dangerous play needs to be firmly squashed. That could convincingly be done by providing objective criterion for a dangerously played ball from beyond 5m of an opponent. It is absurd that the first hit shot at the goal at a penalty corner, even when made from considerably more than 5m, is (correctly) strictly limited, but there is presently no height limit at all on a drag flick made from beyond 5m of an opponent, even if it is propelled (even intentionally) directly at an opponent. Elbow height (120 cms) seems to be both easily identifiable and reasonable and could be used for all shots at the goal including those made in open play and indeed for all raising of the ball towards an opponent more than 5m away.
I suggest that a ball propelled at a velocity that could injure and within the black line shown in the illustration of a body be considered dangerous. The red line indicates an area where a rising ball will be dangerous to a player at almost any velocity.
There could also of course be a change made to the size of the goal. http://wp.me/pKOEk-LX but that is not an immediate or even a short-term solution to the dangerous shot at the goal or relevant to the dangerous raising of the ball at an opponent in open play.
Rules of Hockey. Forcing. Feet. Obstruction. Self defence.
Edited 21st February,2013.
Offence An action contrary to the Rules which may be penalised by an umpire.
2011. Rules of Hockey.
Preface.
The changes in this edition of the Rules essentially seek to simplify the game without altering its fundamental characteristics.
The Rule which used to say that “players must not force an opponent into offending unintentionally” is deleted because any action of this sort can be dealt with under other Rules.
Previous Rules of Hockey 9.15 Players must not force an opponent into offending unintentionally.
Playing the ball clearly and intentionally into any part of an opponent’s body may be penalised as an attempt to manufacture an offence. Forcing an opponent to obstruct (often emphasised by running into an opponent or by waving the stick) must also be penalised.
The 2011 Umpire Managers Briefinggave advice to umpires about what to be aware of when dealing with such forcing under other Rules. The Rule which used to say that ‘players must not force an opponent into offending unintentionally’ is deleted -any action of this sort can be dealt with under other Rules •Be aware of attempts to gain free hits by the ball carrier, for example, by: - •Deliberately running into opponents •Playing the ball dangerously into a defender’s body •Trying to demonstrate an obstruction by lifting their stick dangerously over an opponent’s head These are offences in their own right and upset opponents; think through where the ball carrier is likely to do this.
There is immediately an obvious conflict. An offence is an action contrary to the Rules which may be penalised by an umpire, but a breach of Rule which is forced by an opponent cannot be penalised if intention is required for an offence to occur, there cannot be an offence if the breach of Rule is forrced. In the case of body/ball contact, the most commonly forced breach of Rule, the use of ”unintentional offence” is an oxymoron.
There is an offence by the forcing player if the forcing is done in such a way as to be itself an offence. Some examples of the latter are given in the UMB.
There is however also a forcing action by an opponent, that was clearly an offence under the deleted Rule, but which is not covered by other Rules (which is contrary to the assertion that any action of this sort can be dealt with under other Rules).
The not covered action is the intentional playing of the ball (other than dangerously) at or into an opponent, particularly from close range. This is an oversight (?) and a serious mistake by the FIH Rules Committee.
The 2011 change may have sought ” to simplify the game without altering its fundamental characteristics” but in this it has failed spectacularly, because the change has resulted in a significant increase in the forcing of foot (and leg) contacts and also to a change in attitude to what was previously seen as an offence.
Players who would not deliberately play the ball into the feet of an opponent because that was contrary to Rule will now do so, because it is no longer an offence. They are now even being coached that such play is a legitimate skill (such cynical coaching has been going on for many years, but relied on umpires not seeing the intention of the player who propelled the ball and incorrectly penalising the player hit with the ball – for an intentional foot/ball contact or for gaining benefit – even though the latter was deleted from the Rules of Hockey years ago). Now, in 2013 unless there is also dangerous play, an umpire will not regard deliberately playing the ball into the feet of a close opponent as an offence and is in fact likely to penalise the player hit with the ball even though the player hit has not committed an offence.
For decades before 2004, when there was an extensive revision and reformatting of the rule book, the Rules of Hockey contained this advice to umpires – alongside Guidance concerning ‘advantage to his team’ or ‘gained undue benefit’ -a player should not be penalised for a rebound when the ball has been propelled straight at him from close quarters by an opponent.Despite any advantage or benefit gained from a rebound after a body/ball contact the player hit was not to be penalised if the ball had been propelled at him from close range. That seems straightforward to me and it encourages the right attitude – players should be encouraged to avoid playing the ball into or at an opponent, to develop stick and ball skills to evade and elude a tackle and discouraged from playing the ball into an opponent by being penalised for doing so. That is not now the case and there is no good reason why that is so. The ‘bad’ reason for the deletion and the accompanying change of attitude, is that the forcing of foot contact, followed by the penalising of such contact, results in a large number of penalty corners being awarded, with a subsequent increase in drag-flick shots from the set-piece and an increase in spectacular goals. The revision is devious, dangerous and dumb.
Field Hockey Rules. Dangerously played ball. Shot at goal.
Read through all the Rules of Hockey have to say about propelling the ball in a dangerous way and decide if a shot at the goal (a) in open play (b) during a penalty corner, cannot be dangerous play or must not be made in a dangerous way i.e. must not be dangerous play.
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.
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.
If the ball is raised over an opponent’s stick or body on the ground, even within the circle, it is permitted unless judged to be 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.
If an opponent is clearly running into the shot or into the attacker without attempting to play the ball with their stick, they should be penalised for dangerous play.
Penalties.
Procedure for the taking of a penalty corner.
13.3. 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.
‘Slap’ hitting the ball, which involves a long pushing or sweeping movement with the stick before making contact with the ball, is regarded as a hit.
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.
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.
Otherwise, 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.
It is strange that in an open play situation the only Guidance there is concerning a shot hit at the goal, even a raised shot, is:-
A ball is considered dangerous when it causes legitimate evasive action by players.
There is no objective criteria whatsoever – nothing at all concerning the distance from an opponent the ball is hit or the height of the shot or the velocity of the ball (which is germane to the propensity of the ball to cause injury and to the legitimacy of evasive action).
There is no mention of any of these criterion in the advice to umpires given in the Umpire Managers Briefing to Umpires either, except to state :-
A forehand hard hit using the edge of the stick is not allowed and should be penalised even for a shot at goal.
Low balls over defenders sticks in a controlled manner that hit half shin pad are not dangerous.(which is most likely about a flicked ball)
Watch the ball on the way up – the ball must not be flicked dangerously towards an opposing player (from Aerial balls)
Be aware of attempts to gain free hits by the ball carrier, for example, by playing the ball dangerously into a defender’s body.
Penalty Corner.
Position of disengaged umpire should allow support of colleague on the height and direction of the shot, the possibility of suicide runners and possible obstruction of runners.
(the term ‘suicide runners’ – which should not be in the UMB at all in my opinion – refers only to a defending player who clearly intentionally plays the ball with the body and makes no attempt to play it with the stick)
When the ball is missing the goal and the defender is hit high on the body, decision is a free hit to the defence. (Only when the ball is missing the goal?)
What is carefully avoided in both the Rules of Hockey and the UMB is any reference to the decision that should be made when a defending player cannot take evasive action when the ball is propelled high and a defending player is hit with the ball - when (a) the ball is propelled from beyond 5m of the defender and (b) is not going wide of the goal – is ‘on target’. The reasons given for the award of a penalty stroke do not assist here.
12.4 A penalty stroke is awarded :
a) for an offence by a defender in the circle which prevents the probable scoring of a goal.
b) for an intentional offence in the circle by a defender against an opponent who has possession of the ball or an opportunity to play the ball.
It is obviously not an offence to be hit with a ball that has been propelled – at the player hit – in a dangerous way.
It is not an offence to make an involuntary (unintentional or accidental) ball-body contact. (Guidance to Rule 9.11
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.) The word alwayshas been in this Guidance since before the ‘gains benefit’ exception was removed from the Rules of Hockey and is now redundant- there now being no reason to penalise an unintentional ball/body contact.
The possibility of an offence being ‘created’ by a benefit gained from a ball/body contact (which was obviously only possible in the absence of dangerous play by the shooting player) was removed when the gains benefit exception clause was withdrawn – there is now no exception to the embedded Rule Guidance.
Conclusion?
My conclusion is that this :-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. from the penalty corner Rules describes play which is indistinguishable from open play (especially now that off-side no longer exists – this Rule clause has been in the Rules of Hockey since long before the withdrawal of the Off-side Rule and the circle is now no more crowded in the penalty corner situation than it is generally in open play), therefore the conditions within it ought to be applied to open play, especially in the absence of any reference within the Rules of Hockey to dangerous play and the raised hit in the circle in open play when there is supposedly “an emphasis on safety” demanded by the FIH.
(this Rule would be ‘adopted’ in the same way as the ’within 5m and above knee height‘ criterion from the penalty corner Guidance is generally used in open play situations to describe a dangerously played ball – and the Guidance from Rule 9.9. - which refers only to flicks and scoops and does not provide a height limit – would not be (is not) when the ball is raised but not as high as knee height. Technically, according to the Guidance provided in Rule 9.9 any raising of the ball at an opponent within 5m with a flick or a scoop – and therefore presumably with a hit also – is a dangerous play offence).
It is reasonable to state:- that in open play shots at the goal, including hits, flicks, scoops and deflections should be permitted to be of any height but must not be dangerous.
The statement that a shot at the goal must not be made in a dangerous way (made in Rule 13.3.l) means that it is a possibility that an ‘on target’ shot at goal could be made in a way that is considered to be dangerous play and penalised as an offence. The assumption is therefore made that if a hit flick or a scoop above knee height can be considered dangerous when used to make a second or subsequent shot at goal in the penalty corner situation, such shots can also reasonably be be deemed to be dangerous in open play.
We have however no idea what an umpire might consider to be a dangerously played ball when it is propelled at an opponent who is more than 5m from the ball. This is still an entirely subjective decision based on legitimate evasive action, but we don’t know what legitimate evasive action is either: this again is an entirely subjective judgement by an umpire – no objective criteria is recommended by the FIH RC for the judgement of it by an umpire.
Here are a couple of examples of such judgement. In both the opposing player was within 5m of the raised shot.
This in open play during a high level match,
This the first shot at goal during a penalty corner in a low level club game.
Not ‘one off’ isolated incidents of ‘brain fade’, unless such ‘brain fade’ is a lot more common that is generally supposed, there are many more such examples on video and these umpires are following instruction from somewhere or think they are doing so.
Who briefed this commentator ? (This clip from 2008 when a free ball could be hit directly into the circle from just outside the circle line)
Field Hockey Rules, Turning, Ball shielding, Obstruction.
Edited 1st February 2013
.
Here is part an not uncommon account by a former player, who took up umpiring full-time after a long break from the game, having previously ‘dabbled’ at umpiring over a number of years.
I first umpired back in 1975 for a friendly game between 2 hospital teams. Over the intervening years I’ve umpired on a part-time basis at club level whilst still playing. Having had a break from hockey (work, marriage and family) I returned in 1999 when my eldest son started playing. I figured the quickest way to learn the new rules (no offside, no turning obstruction , etc) was to pass my Level 1; which I did. From then until 3 seasons ago I played and usually umpired a club match as well every Saturday. The last 2 seasons I’ve become a full-time umpire doing mainly club matches
.
This caught my attention – naturally.
I figured the quickest way to learn the new rules (no offside, no turning obstruction , etc) was to pass my Level 1; which I did.
The apparent absence of an Obstruction Rule, related to ball shielding by turning on the ball, is seen by this poster in the same way as the deletion of the off-side Rule. How can that be ?
How did he pass an umpiring Level 1 around 1999 if he believed there was then no Rule concerning ”turning obstruction” ?
This may not have been uncommon at the time because of the convoluted Interpretation given in the rule book, which caused much confusion, but it should not still be the case. In an attempt to make clear that ‘turning’, as it is commonly called, was and still is an obstructive offence, a clause relating specifically to this action (a player in possession of the ball moving to position the body between the ball and an opponent) was added to the Obstruction Rule in 2009. It was the only addition to the Rules of Hockey in that year, so difficult to miss, but most umpires apparently managed to do so – or were told to ignore it. (many if not most umpires had given up on trying to make sense of what was called the PIT interpretation)
(that, incidentally, was the year the ‘gains benefit’ clause – the one umpires still insist on applying - was clearly definitely not going to be returned to the Rules of Hockey, despite its retention during 2007-2009 due to a ‘FIH note’ issued within a month of its initial deletion from the 2007 rule book – again umpires are following verbal instruction rather than observing the deletion. The deletion should not have been made, there should instead have been amendment to the Guidance: but that is another story ) http://wp.me/pKOEk-xj
Here is the current Obstruction Rule with the embedded Guidance (except for that relating to third-party, which is omitted for brevity). The part in red bold is the clause extension added in 2009.
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.
I think it common sense to interpret “ a player in possession of the ball…. is permitted to move off with it in any direction except…..into a a position between the ball and an opponent….etc” as a prohibition on turning, on or with the ball, to position the body to shield the ball from an opponent who is in a balanced position, demonstrating an intention to play it and is within playing reach of it, in other words, but for the positioning of the body by the ball holder an opponent would be able to play at the ball immediately (‘but for the positioning of the body by the ball holder an opponent would be able to play at the ball immediately‘ is as concise a ‘rule of thumb’ definition of ‘obstructed’as I have been able to find in previous FIH publications and it is still relevant and useful as a heuristic when the tacker is his own goal side of the ball). I would be interested to learn of other possible interpretation of the words of the expanded clause taken together with ‘attempting to play at the ball’ and ‘within playing distance’ .
Is obstruction difficult for players to cope with? Yes it is, it demands some skill. In order to comply with the Rules players have to develop the skills necessary to face and ‘take on’ opponents or move the ball or move with the ball to keep it out of the reach of opponents – doing these things well results in ’game flow’ and that is one of the most attractive features of good hockey. An analogy of the difficulty could be taken from tennis. The sever in tennis is at a disadvantage until he learns to serve well consistently, then he has the advantage rather than a disadvantage when it is his serve. In hockey the tackler has a distinct advantage until the novice becomes competent in ball control and dribbling: then the ball holder has the advantage. With skilled players, without proper enforcement of the Obstruction Rule – and with physical contact prohibited (Rule 9.13) – an opponent trying to tackle for the ball is unfairly disadvantaged.
That there is now no Rule prohibiting shielding of the ball is presently a notion as widely, but wrongly accepted or unchallenged *, as the oft repeated but also incorrect ‘mantra’ – ”an on target shot at the goal cannot be dangerous play” and “any ball/foot contact will be of benefit to the player hit – or disadvantages opponents “- (and is therefore an offence and should be penalised – unless opponents can play on with advantage). Such disinformation is wrong and pernicious, where does it come from? It is certainly not from the current Rules of Hockey.
*(Many umpires are unable to describe an incident of obstruction – without physical contact – that they would penalise ; they don’t know what it is they should be looking for as a breach of the Rule)
The only difference between the Obstruction Rule we now have and that of 1975, is that now a player in the act of receiving the ball (generally from the his rear, the direction of his own defence) – and shielding it from a marker – who is within playing distance of the ball – while doing so, is given leeway to take the ball into control before moving away with it. i.e. he is not, as he would have been prior to 1993, obstructing immediately an opponent demonstrates the direct path to the ball is blocked by the player in possession of the ball and a tackle attempt is being prevented.
On the other hand, a player who is in controlled possession of the ball, who turns to position his body between the ball and an opponent within playing distance of the ball, to prevent a tackle attempt, is obstructing immediately he does so - or obstructs jf he does not, having so turned to that position, immediately move off with the ball – or pass it away – that is moves away or passes away before an opponent intent on tackling for the ball comes within playing distance of it and attempts to play the ball.
In effect a player may receive the ball, even in a stationary position and is then “permitted to move off with it“, that is move away to put and keep the ball beyond the reach of an opponent – but may not otherwise shield the ball to prevent a tackle attempt. Such shielding frustrates a tackler and greatly increases the possibility of a contact offence.
In practice a receiver is not now required to make a lead run when closely marked to ‘lose’ his marker and make time and space in which to receive the ball, as was generally necessary up until 1992/3, unless he was already in free space. This facility to receive the ball in a protected way enabled the tactical development of the game (particularly the back -pass) and reduced the number of obstruction offences ‘called’, (as well as reducing physical contact by tacklers), but it was not intended to allow the now common stationary ball shielding, ‘turning’ ’crabbing’ and ‘dawdling’ on the ball in blocking positions – by players already in controlled possession of the ball – which so mar the modern game, sometimes even at the top levels.
What has now gone – in two stages, 2001 and 2004 – (and ‘good riddance’ to it) – is the ridiculous ”onus on the tackler” …..” to be in and if necessary to move to a position from which a legitimate tackle may be attempted“ which effectively made obstruction by a ball holder who was shielding the ball in a stationary or near stationary position (usually slowly weaving from side to side), while moving the ball, a near impossibility, because a legitimate tackling position could never be achieved, as continual re-positioning of the ball or body to maintain shielding (i.e. obstruction) prevented it. (That there was an ’onus’ or responsibility on players in possession of the ball not to obstruct an opponent within playing distance of the ball and intent on tackling was not mentioned in this interpretation of the Obstruction Rule). Opponents who could not tackle because they were blocked off from the ball were said in effect not to be obstructed, because they were unable to circumvent the blocking player to play at the ball without physical contact with the ball-holder – but the fact that they were obliged to circumvent a player blocking the direct path to the ball in order to attempt a tackle meant that they were obstructed – a conundrum.
Despite the impossible situation it created, this ‘onus on the tackler’ (but not, strangely, on the player in possession of the ball) is what umpire coaches, who ‘did’ their Rules at the time that that obstruction interpretation was extant, are still passing on - in spite of the complete removal of it from the Rules of Hockey nine years ago. The current obstruction Rule is exactly as it was in 1992/3 (when leeway for a receiving player was added), except for the addition of the 2009 clause (on a ball holder positioning the body between an opponent and the ball).
It’s much easier, however, to umpire and be consistent when obstructive play is ignored, as the necessary judgements, of timing and distance, are often difficult. (To get an idea of the difficulties consider what a ‘pig’s ear’ umpires make of judging 5m, especially from distance and with a foreshorten view, when dealing with the quickly taken self-pass and retreating defenders – which difficulties umpires have ironically have invited on themselves by ‘interpretation’). But what could be more consistent than doing nothing about obstructive play? A great way to achieve ‘Rule change’ and consistency – just ignore the Rule.
It seems that all a new umpire (or a player) has to do to know the Rules these days is to know which deletions are still in fact regarded as being ‘on foot’ and what new interpretations or Guidance inventions have arisen since the last FIH Tournament – and they will be told what these are as and when the information is ‘cascaded’ : gossip rules. What is actually written in the published Rules of Hockey can often be ‘safely’ ignored – and in some areas, such as ball/body contact, dangerous play and obstruction, it generally is.
How often are we to hear the excuse ”No, I agree that is not what it says in the rule book but that is the way I have been coached to umpire.” and why is that?
I find it very counterproductive when people keep bringing up the “shot striking a defender closer than 5 meter above the knee is dangerous” rule, as this ONLY applies to (otherwise legitimately) raised balls on the goal at a PC. this does not apply in other situations.
what is true, however, is that danger depends on the skill level of those involved.
The above are comments posted by an umpire on an Internet hockey forum thread about the raising of the ball high at another player in the outfield – specifically the scooping of the ball at or very close to an opponent who is closing on the player in possession. The initial poster had, rightly, made the observation that the introduction of the facility to directly lift the ball from a free should have reduced or eliminated such incidents (because an opponent could not encroach within 5m before a scoop was made from a free ball). It was pointed out however that there is nothing to prohibit a self-pass being followed immediately with a scoop pass and scoops are also made in open play.
This umpire’s comments are however misguided and misguidance. It is true that the first hit shot at the goal at a penalty corner cannot be scored from if raised above knee height (460mm), and if a raised shot, however made, hits a defender who is within 5m of the ball, above knee height then a free ball will be (or should be) awarded to the defending team (in fact a free should be awarded to the defence if an out-runner evades a shot raised above 460mm to avoid being hit with the ball) and, conversely, a player hit below the knee with a first shot at the goal will be penalised with the award of another penalty corner. But, according to the provided Rule Guidance (Rule 9.9), if, in open play, a ball is raised to any height towards an opponent who is within 5m that is considered dangerous play.
These are the two Rules concerning dangerous playing of the ball ( I will leave aside here consideration of the falling aerial pass).
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.
Which (oddly) says nothing about either height or distance or about velocity in relation to a dangerously played ball (there is no cut-off distance beyond which dangerous playing of the ball at an opponent is not a possibility i.e. legitimate evasive action is not distance limited)
and
The Guidance embedded with Rule 9.9, (a Rule which concerns the intentional raising of the ball with a 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 fi eld unless it is dangerous.
If the ball is raised over an opponent’s stick or body on the ground, even within the circle, it is permitted unless judged to be 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.(my underlining. This ‘remnant’ is all that is left of the Rule:- A player shall not raise the ball at another player.,which was in the rule book until the ‘simplification and clarification’ of the Rules in 2004 )
If an opponent is clearly running into the shot or into the attacker without attempting to play the ball with their stick, they should be penalised for dangerous play. (my bold and underling. This conflicting clause was added to the Rules of Hockey before the Athens Olympics following the tactics of the Korean team in a previous Tournament when defending a penalty corner. It has ‘expanded’ to the point where no ‘on target’ shot at the goal is considered dangerous and closing down on a shooter from within the goal at a penalty corner is seen – ‘interpreted’ -as an offence, irrespective or an attempt to use the stick to intercept the ball. The concept has been encapsulated in the jargon ‘Suicide runner’ – which removes the need to explain any ‘offence’. )
Why direction to players and umpires concerning a flick or scoop towards an opponent should be given in a Rule about the intentional raising of the ball with a hit is a mystery. What should be noticed however is that there is no reference to the height of the ball in this Rule Guidance – In Rule 9.8 the embedded Guidance refers to a subjective judgement, the legitimacy of evasive action, in Rule 9.9.the embedded Guidance refers to objective criteria, 1) raised ball 2) towards an opponent who is 3) within 5m
The knee height allowance for a shot towards a player in the penalty corner situation is actually greater than should be generally allowed in open play incidents. (The UMB advises umpires that a ball “below half-shin pad height” is not dangerous; it must be taken from that advice that a ball which is above half-shin pad height – i.e. 25cms – 30cms and towards another player within 5m is to be considered dangerous or may be considered dangerous). The comment in the first paragraph above says nothing either way, only that the Rules concerning the penalty corner (sic first hit shot at goal) do not apply in other situations, but the inference seems to be that ‘knee height’ applies only in the penalty corner situation and there is otherwise no height restriction on a ball propelled towards another player i.e. the matter of danger is entirely a matter of umpire judgement (of legitimate evasive action) alone.
In fact the opposite is nearer the truth, the Rule Guidance about a dangerously played ball is more severe in open play than it is in relation to the first hit shot at a penalty corner – not less so – any lifting of the ball towards a close opponent is considered dangerous play. It is as likely that ball velocity will be a consideration as it is that ball height may be in judging the legitimacy of any evasive action taken, but nowhere is ball velocity mentioned in the Rules (except perhaps that a forehand edge hit may not be ‘hard’ or a goalkeeper may not propel a ball ‘forcefully’ with a hand protector).
It is strange that the Guidance to Rule 9.8. – on legitimate evasive action – is noted ( even if generally ignored) but participants seem to be unaware of the Guidance to Rule 9.9. concerning the flicking or scooping a ball towards another player who is within 5m of the ball (it is even stranger that in a Rule that is about the raising of the ball with a hit and in which dangerous play is described the raising the ball with a hit at an opponent is not mentioned. Perhaps it is assumed, by common sense, that a raised hit at a close player will be considered dangerous play, because a flick towards a close opponent is so considered ?)
There are a few other oddities arising from the Guidance to Rule 9.9. Take this for example:-
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.
and note the similarity to this (from Rule 9.11 – the ball/body contact Rule) :-
It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a fi eld 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.
then consider the difference in the way the Guidance about an unintentionally raised hit – and even a deliberately raised hit, that is not a shot at the goal, is applied, compared with the way Guidance concerning unintentional ball/body contacts is applied.
Then there is this Rule Guidance:-
If an opponent is clearly running into the shot or into the attacker without attempting to play the ball with their stick, they should be penalised for dangerous play. itis the only Guidance repeated in the Rules of Hockey, it also appears in the Rules concerning the penalty corner. Like the Guidance to the ball/body contact Rule (where intent is overlooked), a vital part of it is generally ignored i.e. -without attempting to play the ball with their stick. There is no Rule or Guidance that states that a player cannot close on an opponent in possession of the ball from anywhere on the pitch (including directly from within the goal during a penalty corner). The Rule Guidance is aimed specifically at players who deliberately use their bodies to intercept the ball, not at players who attempt to play the ball with the stick, but this Guidance is so badly applied that a myth that it is an offence to run from the center of the goal towards a shooter in possession of the ball has become deeply entrenched in the ‘mindset’ of not only players but many umpires too.
The second comment
what is true, however, is that danger depends on the skill level of those involved.
It is NOT true that danger depends on the skill level of those involved. People have come to accept such nonsense without thinking about what the statement means, in the same way that they accept that 2+2 =4, it is simply learned or accepted without reflection. Close examination of danger depends on the skill level of those involved in the context of a principal of Rule application, reveals that the statement must be a fallacy because it states in effect that skilled players cannot ever be endangered by any ball that is propelled at them. Responsibility for causing endangerment is also taken from the player propelling the ball and laid on the player the ball is propelled at – not at all what the Rules of Hockey require.
What is true is that experienced and alert defenders may be able to avoid or even play with the stick, balls that have been played at them in a way that endangers them, i.e. forces self-defence to avoid injury – and it is also true that a necessary act of evasion is supposed to define a dangerously played ball. What is being asserted is that skilled players do not need in any circumstances to evade a ball that is propelled at them or if they do evade the ball then the ball could not have been propelled in a dangerous way. That is obviously a nonsense as it is an inversion of the definition of a dangerously played ball and there are also plenty of examples of highly skilled players being injured with the ball they have been unable to evade or to play. But, if legitimate evasive action is to be removed as as a valid criteria for dangerous play, which is what the ‘skill level’ statement implies, something has to be put in its place when a ball is raised at high velocity at another player - from both within and beyond beyond 5m of that player. The alternative is to declare that players cannot be endangered by a ball propelled towards them from beyond 5m (which is close to the current attitude) and also to go along with the idea that skillful players cannot be endangered in any circumstances. In the circumstances being commented upon (a player closing on another who flicks or scoops the ball towards the closing player) the Guidance embedded in Rule 9.9 should be a sufficient safeguard, but it cannot be if it is ignored.
A ball that is propelled at high velocity high into the body (or at the head) of any player, no matter how skilled that player may be, will endanger that player (put her or him at risk of injury). That the player so endangered has the skill or the luck to avoid injury does not make the play of the player who propelled the ball ‘non-dangerous’. That skilled players cannot be endangered by a ball raised at them is part of the same flawed ‘logic’ that declares that a shot at the goal cannot be dangerous play and obviously makes no sense.
Such nonsense – if accepted – is counter productive in that it prevents a clear understanding and application of Rules, but then so too is the confusing way in which Rules concerning dangerous play are set out in the Rules of Hockey: the present confusing statements do not produce a clear understanding of what is written or of the intent of the Rule.
There is a reliance on the ‘common sense’ (‘interpretation’ and subjective judgement) of umpires, but there is no more evidence that umpires have a common sense of what is dangerous play (or even that they are aware of A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous.) or that they will apply their ‘common sense’, than there is that players will play responsibly and with regard for the safety of other players. There are many who say that the above mentioned concepts of dangerous play are outdated or outmoded and that we should “move on”, but this Rule Guidance is in the current (2013-15) Rules of Hockey, and it is never made clear by the people who advocate ‘moving on’ what it is we should ‘move on’ to. They are unable to or won’t put a description of what they want – and are applying – in writing, if players are to remain responsible, as they must be, for actions they take that endanger other players the requirements need to be clearly explained.
For the moment I would rather that a ball raised to knee height or above and at a player within 5m of the ball at the time it was raised, should be considered dangerous, than rely on the notion that danger depends of the skill level of the players involved and that there is no limit on the ball raised at an opponent in open play – especially as the skill seems to be demanded only from the player the ball is raised at, not from the player propelling the ball.
The interpretation of A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous cannot be that a ball raised at a close opponent cannot be dangerous or that “dangerous” or “endangered” depends on skill levels. It is certainly true that the Rule Guidance embedded in Rule 9.9. is so severe, especially as neither height or velocity are mentioned, that most umpires will refuse to enforce it – hence the advice from the UMB that a ball below half-shin pad height is not dangerous (no distance or velocity mentioned) – but to deduce from this advice that there is no height criteria at all in the judgement of ‘dangerous’ outside the penalty corner demonstrates a lack of both knowledge and of common sense – it is a leap from one extreme to another – not sensible at all.
The need for the introduction of clear height criterion for use in the judgement of the raised ball, be it from within 5m of an opponent or from beyond 5m of an opponent, coupled with advice concerning velocity and the propensity of the ball to cause injury or force self-defence if it is propelled at another player, is obvious. This has been stated many times; such a statement was contained in the first sentence of Umpire Coaching document on the raised ball produced in 2001 by John Gawley (then a Level 3 Umpire Coach). The revised document (2005), despite what is given in the UBM, contains exactly the same advice.
No player should ever be put into a position of self-defence against a ball put into the air at any height, be it 15 or 50 centimeters.
The present conflicts are clear, what is to be done to resolve them is not – at the moment it looks as if that will be nothing at all.
Field Hockey Rules. Voluntarily playing the ball with the body.
A small but representative sample of current umpiring practice in the application of Rule Guidance to Rule 9.11.
Rule 9.11 Field players must not stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their body.
Any ball/body contact will be a breach of this Rule but such contact is only a Breach of Rule, not an Offence, unless the contact is made in a way that conforms with the conditions given in the Rule Guidance – voluntarily played with the body or (the very odd) positioned with the intention of playing the ball with the body.
I don’t understand why a) voluntarily played with the body and b) positioned with the intention of playing the ball with the body. are both given. If the ball isintentionally played with the body the player must have been positioned where that could happen and if the player positions the body with the intention of playing the ball with the body that must be done voluntarily. If the ball is not played with the body that cannot be an Offence or even a Breach of the Rule – even if there was an intention to play the ball with the body. I do not see how therefore the positioning of a player or even positioning with intent to make a ball/body contact can be considered a ball contact Offence or even a Breach of Rule 9.11., in and of itself. (Positioning Offences generally relate to Rule 9.12. Obstruction)
Rule Guidance. 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.
The Rule and the embedded Rule Guidance are to be read together as a whole, not in isolation from each other.
Current application appears to follow part of the following advice (gleaned from UK County Umpires Association Handbook in 2011):- “The notes to the foot body rule 9.11 say it is an offence ‘only’ when contact with the ball is ‘voluntary’, but in practice an accidental contact that alters the balance of play is just as much an offence as deliberately playing with foot or body.
This is just one example of interpreting rules consistently with your partner and with other umpires the teams will have. Sometimes their interpretation will differ from how the rule seems, to you, to read. But you must umpire play their way, and never apply your own version. If that leaves you uncomfortable then a bit of lateral thinking should soon enough make the same sense of it for you as it does for everyone else.”
That and similar such advice is not followed exactly, umpires often go beyond it. Even contact forced by an opponent or accidental contact, where there is clearly no advantage gained by the player hit with the ball, is generally penalised ‘automatically’ – this has become a reflex action, not a judgement.
Umpires who at first feel that the ‘interpretation’ applied by ‘everyone’ is unfair or contrary to the Rules of Hockey or contrary to common sense are told :- “Sometimes their interpretation will differ from how the rule seems, to you, to read. But you must umpire play their way, and never apply your own version. If that leaves you uncomfortable then a bit of lateral thinking should soon enough make the same sense of it for you as it does for everyone else.” (and they generally are ‘told’, such instructions it must be appreciated are very rarely given in writing).
Such application is then justified because ‘everyone ‘ umpires in that way so they “mustbe umpiring in the way that ‘the FIH’ wants them to” to quote the oft used circular reasoning. That may be so, I don’t know the name of the individual who is referred to as ‘the FIH‘, but from the wording of the Rule Guidance it clearly isn’t the way in which the FIH Rules Committee (the sole Rule Authority) intend this Rule to be applied.
The first sentence of the Rule Guidance It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field playermay be out of date now as it was not altered when the ‘gains benefit’ exception to the Guidance was withdrawn. If it had been updated it should read It is not an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player. The player commits an offence only if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ballbecause there is not now an exception to justify the word always,that should have been deleted. But, as can be seen, from the instructions given to Level One candidates by the Umpire Coach quoted above there is a reluctance (or refusal) to accept that ‘gains benefit’ has been deleted. (This refusal is based on a note posted on the FIH website in February 2007, three weeks after the issue of thew 2007-9 Rules of Hockey, which apparently restored the deleted Guidance clause. But this appears to have been an unconstitutional act which may have upset the members of the FIH Rules Committee,the clause was not restored to the Rules of Hockey in the 2009-11 or 2011-13 or 2013-15 issues of the rule book. Six years on it must be assumed that the FIH Rules Committee do not intend that it will be – at least not in its previous form.).
How this ….or if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way.is to be judged remains unexplained. The meaning of the words is clear but the context in which they are to be applied is not. For example: – how can any player who is beyond playing distance of the ball be seen to be positioning with the intention of stopping the ball in a certain way?
It is, I think, reasonable to assume that this clause applies to actions taken by a tackler who is within playing distance of the ball; actions such as diving into or across an opponent who is in possession of the ball. It certainly seems unreasonable – assuming the player in question is in a normal playing stance – to ask an umpire to determine the ball playing intentions of a defender who is positioned or positioning beyond playing distance of the ball; what would be the criteria to watch for – other than not in possession of a hockey stick?
It also seems unreasonable to assume that because a player is hit with the ball he or she intended to be so hit or deliberately positioned with that intention – unless of course the player clearly made no attempt to use the stick to play the ball when they could reasonably have attempted to do so. Failure to play the ball with the stick, when there was a genuine attempt to do so, cannot reasonably be seen as an intention to play the ball with the body (but from the evidence in the video clips, it is most often seen in that way).
The statement below was posted elsewhere by an FIH Umpire in answer to a question put about a defender intentionally hitting a ball, that was bouncing across the goal-line in the circle. The ball was hit on the volley to around the half-way line and without doubt intentionally lifted. Penalty corner or penalty stroke? :-
“intentionally raising a hit”, does not make it a PS. The offence itself is not to raise it accidentally, but to raise it intentionally. Compounding it to make that a PS is an incorrect application of the rule.
Okay so far. I agree that as the hitting action discussed did not illegally prevent an attacker playing the ball, the defender reached the ball and played it first without endangering anyone else (even if he did not play it in a legitimate way), there was no direct prevention of goal and no other breach of Rule and a penalty stroke is not the appropriate or correct penalty. The intentional raising of the ball with a hit was the only breach of Rule - such raising of the ball is an offence anywhere on the pitch if it is done intentionally with a hit.
The answer continued:-
For example, a defender accidentally uses a foot to play the ball in the circle. It’s a PC If they do so intentionally, it’s a PS. If a defender accidentally raises a hit inside the circle (and no danger is caused, which is a completely separate rule), it’s no foul at all. If they do so intentionally, it’s a…. PS? Nope. PC.
The action itself is not an offence, the intent is and is not penalized the same way as another foul which will be penalized even if done accidentally.
I hope that makes sense.
No, it does not (and I am pleased to say that the above post was subsequently deleted)
The contradiction in the approach (which is widespread in ‘practice’) between an accidental ball/body contact and an accidentally raised hit makes no sense whatsoever.
Determining if there has been an offence and applying penalty should (must) be carried out in exactly the same way with these two (quite different) breaches of Rule. The basic differences are only that one involves intentional illegal ‘use’ of the body to intercept the ball and the other intentional illegal use of the stick when propelling the ball,
Dangerous play is a separate breach of Rule – one in which intention is not necessary for an offence to have occurred – but it could be combined with other breaches of Rule, particularly either the dangerous accidental or intentional raising of the ball with a hit or scoop or a drag-flick. Use of the body in a dangerous way is more often associated with physical contact offences, although deliberate self-endangerment when, for example, defending the goal, is a possibility (which is one reason why an amended ‘gains benefit’ exception to the Guidance to Rule 9.11 is required).
In a later post this is added:- The issue raised is, can a foul that requires the action to be intentional in and of itself in order to be penalized, also be upgraded to a more severe penalty because it is intentional? The answer is no, because doing so would make the requirement of intention non-sensical. How do you decide to apply a personal penalty to an intentionally lifted hit (that does not break any other rule prohibiting danger, time wasting, etc.)? When it’s really intentional? Super intentional? Or every time, since it’s intentional? No. Never. The intention IS the foul.
“The intention IS the foul”.
The action itself is not an offence, the intent is
Neither statement is true, an intentional action cannot be separated from the intention to carry it out. What is possibly meant is :- in particular cases if a breach of Rule occurs (not is just intended but is actually carried out) an offence will have occurred if the action taken was intentional.
If a breach of Rule was intended but did not actually occur there is no breach of Rule and there can be no offence.
.
Off-hand I can think of four examples where a breach of Rule is not an offence unless it is actually successfully carried out and done so intentionally (there may be others).
1) raising of the ball with a hit (except when taking a shot at the goal within the opponent’s circle) 2) use of any part the body by a field-player to stop or deflect the ball. 3) defender hitting (at) an above shoulder shot at the goal 4) defending field-player playing (at) an above shoulder shot at the goal that is going wide of target.
There is, in addition, (a) the intentional playing of the ball over the back-line by a defender and (b) an out-runner being hit with a below knee-height ball even when trying to play the ball with the stick, neither of which are offences, but both result in penalty corner awards (which is unfair and inexplicable).
Intentional, super intentional?
If the term ‘intentional offence’ was not used in the Rules of Hockey things might be clearer. Where intention is required for a breach of Rule to be an offence, the action would then be an offence or not an offence depending on intention and we would not have an intentional intentional offence (or “super intentional”) or have to try to explain awkward terms.
The use of the word ‘foul’ is not helpful and it is not in the rulebook. Is a foul a breach of Rule or an offence? Answer: it could be either depending on usage common in a locality – so the use of either ‘offence’ or ‘foul’, if preferred, should be consistent and the use of both – without differentiation – avoided. The words used to communicate ideas are important (Basketball uses Offence and Violation in the way that hockey could use Offence and Breach)
The distinction between a breach of Rule and an offence is one that is not generally understood because the terms ‘offence’ and ‘intentional offence’ are used in the rulebook without there being a very clear distinction made between them, but there is no excuse for any qualified umpire to be incorrect about the reasons for awarding a penalty corner or a penalty stroke. This umpire wrote:-
For example, a defender accidentally uses a foot to play the ball in the circle. It’s a PC If they do so intentionally, it’s a PS.
Is this a mistake (and not just of syntax) or is it ignorance or a stubborn refusal to comprehend or to follow Rule Guidance to Rule 9.11.and the Rules given under Penalties? Rule 9.11.Guidance 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. (the subsequent deletion hopefully indicates a mistake – ‘brain fade’ – but I don’t have much hope that the statement was made in error, the idea that any foot contact in the circle by a defender should or even must be penalised is firmly held by many umpires)
The layout of that Rule Guidance is not good, it is however perfectly clear that an unintentional ball/body contact is not an offence, but it is a breach of Rule. For an offence to occur there has to be a voluntary (intentional) action – without intent, there is no offence, so no penalty can be applied (its easy to see where “the intention is the offence” comes from)
It should be noted that the verb ‘to play’ is consistent with an intentional action, one cannot accidentally ‘play’ the ball, so to say “accidentally uses a foot to play the ball in the circle” is a contradiction in terms, a misuse of language, especially when what is meant is that the player was hit with the ball. (It is possible to play the ball, for example with the stick, in a way that was not intended, but that is a failure of skill not an absence of intent to use the stick to play the ball)
Penalty Stroke
Neither of these breaches of Rule in the circle is penalised with a penalty stroke unless it is intentional and (illegally) deprives an opponent of the ball or an opportunity to play the ball (not just getting to the ball first but, for example, physically preventing the opponent getting to the ball at all) or directly prevents the scoring of a goal. (Opportunity to play the ball being a bit weak because it is open to interpretation).
Summary
If a defender accidentally raises a hit inside the circle it’s not an offence at all;
If they do so intentionally, it’s a penalty stroke or a penalty corner depending on whether or not : 1) this intentional breach of Rule also deprived an opponent of a goal scoring opportunity or 2) it also occurred while depriving an opponent of possession. or 3) it also occurred while directly prevented a goal.
If a field-defender accidentally makes body contact with the ball in the circle (or anywhere else on the pitch) it’s not an offence at all;
If a field-player intentionally makes ball/body contact in the circle, it’s a penalty stroke or a penalty corner depending on whether or not : 1) the intentional breach of Rule also deprived an opponent of a goal scoring opportunity or 2) it also deprived an opponent of possession. or 3) it also directly prevented a goal.
Irrespective of intention, if a defender plays the ball dangerously in the circle it’s a penalty stroke or a penalty corner depending on whether or not : 1) the breach of Rule also deprived an opponent of a goal scoring opportunity or 2) it also occurred while depriving an opponent of possession. or 3) it also occurred while directly prevented a goal.
(Dangerous play must, by definition, disadvantage an opponent -cause evasive action - so ‘dangerous play’ which does not disadvantage an opponent or breach other objective criteria for ‘dangerous’ is not in fact dangerous play)
An accidental (or forced) ball/body contact is a “play on” situation (no exceptions since ‘gains benefit’ was removed).
Accidentally raising the ball with a hit is not an offence – or even a breach of Rule (It would make as much sense to apply ‘gains benefit’ to accidentally raised hits as it does to apply it to accidental ball/body contact, but it is not a path that could be taken easily and it should not now be taken with accidental ball/body contact – perhaps never should have been except when a goal was directly prevented.)
An intentional foot/ball contact in the defended 23m area may be penalised with a free-ball or penalty corner and at least a penalty corner within the defended circle (see conditions above). Personal penalty may also be applied.
Conclusion
At present:-
if any player accidentally raises the ball with a hit that is not of itself an offence – it is not even, of itself, a breach of Rule.
if any field-player accidentally makes body contact with the ball (anywhere on the pitch) that is not of itself an offence, but (embedded Guidance being part of the Rule) it is a breach of Rule
Field Hockey Rules. Unfair Benefit Gained. Disadvantaged.
Edited 2nd May 2013
In the Umpiring Section of the Rules of Hockey (which is where all the published umpire briefings and advice should be contained) under the heading
2 Applying the Rules.
there is a sub-heading 2.2. Advantagewhich advises:
a. it is not necessary for every offence to be penalised when no benefit is gained by the offender ; unnecessary interruptions to the flow of the match cause undue delay and irritation
b. when the Rules have been broken, an umpire must apply advantage if this is the most severe penalty
c. possession of the ball does not automatically mean there is an advantage ; for advantage to apply, the player/team with the ball must be able to develop their play
d. having decided to play advantage, a second opportunity must not be given by reverting to the original penalty
The crux of the message is that the umpire has discretion about applying penalty when an Offence has been committed. There is a deviation introduced in clause (b) which refers to “when the Rules have been broken”, this is a deviation from clause (a) because a Breach of Rule may not necessarily be an Offence, We are given some examples in the Rules of Hockey of Breaches of Rule (breaking of Rules) that are not offences, particularly in the Guidance to Rule 9.11 :-
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 offenceif 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.
We may argue indefinitely about the difference between ‘voluntarily’ and ‘intentionally’ and what is meant by or if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way , because no one seems to know the answers, but both those clauses refer to actions that are Breaches of Rule but are not, or are not always, offences.
To continue :- “an umpire must apply advantage if this is the most severe penalty” to call the applying of advantage a more severe penalty seems to me an odd use of language, as what is meant is that penalty should not be applied. It might have been better put, “an umpire should not penalise an offence if doing so would disadvantage the team offended against.”
There is another potential source of confusion connected to this in the Penalties Section, where ironically the second sentence is along the lines I suggested above (which avoided the double negative).
12 Penalties 12.1 Advantage : a penalty is awarded only when a player or team has been disadvantaged by an opponent breaking the Rules. If awarding a penalty is not an advantage to the team which did not break the Rules, play must continue.(note ‘must’ not ‘may’)
The potential confusion is contained in “has been disadvantaged by an opponent breaking the Rules” when the only examples of a player being in breach of Rule and not at the same time committing an offence are:-
the exceptions given in Rule 9.11 mentioned above (which appear to be ignored)
the intentional playing of the ball over the base-line by a defender (a silly rule);
a defender, while attempting to use the stick to play the ball, hit below the knee from within 5m with a shot at the goal during a penalty corner (an unjust and dangerous rule)
The sentence would be better put “If awarding a penalty would be a disadvantage to the team offended against play must continue.
Being clear about what an Offence is and how it may or does differ from a Breach of Rule would go some way to sorting out the present muddle between advantage, not disadvantaged and gained benefit, as well as when and if a penalty ought to be applied. We could at least avoid this sort of nonsense
“Being forced, the defender’s foot contact with the ball was involuntary and unavoidable, but it disadvantaged an opponent and so a penalty corner was awarded.“ There is a Breach of Rule by the defender there, but no Offence and there should be no penalty, disadvantaging an opponent is not an Offence – players spend the entire playing time legitimately trying to disadvantage their opponents – for an Offence there has to be either an illegal action or an action that is illegal in certain circumstances (which should be clearly set out) for example, intention.
The opposite is this “The defender stuck his leg out and deliberately kicked the ball but, as the attacker was able to regain possession of it and play on with advantage, a team penalty was not called for” (a personal penalty may however have followed after the event).
It has proved,to be extraordinarily difficult to get umpires to assimilate and accommodate the absence of the previous exception to the present Guidance to Rule 9.11.; an exception that was deleted firstly in 2006 and finally in 2009 (on this the third occasion this gained advantage or gained benefit exception clause has been removed. The previous time was in major rewrite of the rulebook in 1995/6 ).
The corresponding Rule of 1995/6 is I think an interesting contrast to the present version, although some of the same ambiguities and conflicts are present.
13.1.2 Use of body, hands, feet
A player shall not a. stop the ball with the hand or catch it 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 an offence if the ball hits the foot or body of a player unless that player: • has moved into the path of the ball, or • made no effort to avoid being hit, or • was positioned with the clear intention of stopping the ball (with the body was added later)
Players should not be penalised when the ball is played at them from a short distance.
c. use the foot or leg to support the stick in a tackle.
It was also of course an offence to force a ball contact on an opponent and to raise the ball at an opponent (it still is in some circumstances an offence to raise the ball at an opponent and ‘forcing’ ball/body contact is supposed to be covered by ‘other Rules’,but one would not know this from a casual reading of the 2013 rulebook).
Back to the present:
An involuntary (unintentional) ball/body contact is a Breach of Rule(because the word intentionally has been removed from the Rule) but it is NOT an Offence and therefore there is no penalty stipulated for such Breach of Rule. There is currently no exception to that statement. Advantaged gained, benefit gained, disadvantaged opponents, PREVENTING A CERTAIN GOAL, are all irrelevant. The last a case of ‘throwing the baby out with the bathwater’ and an embarrassment that needs to be corrected with an amended gained unfair benefit clause in that case (and perhaps in only one other – an unintentional ball/body contact by a player who is in possession of the ball).
What to do with this following Guidance?
It is not an offence if the ball hits the hand holding the stick but would otherwise have hit the stick.
(better written It is not an offence if the ball hits a hand holding the stick but would otherwise have hit the stick).
Delete it as covered by the Rule?
Rule 9.11. Field players must not intentionally play the ball with any part of their body.
Job done, nothing more is needed for the Rule.
Rule Guidance could be added to cover an unintentional ball/body contact that prevents a certain goal, in the absence of a prior offence by opponents (such as a ball raised above a given height and/or from within a given distance at the player hit with the ball). Such body/ball contact should be penalised with a penalty stroke. Not to award a penalty stroke in such circumstances is likely to lead to reckless defending i.e. intentional self-endangerment.
At this stage, a ‘mythology’ having developed about ‘acceptance of risk‘ and ‘positioning with the intention of using the body to play the ball‘ or ‘backing the stick with the body in case the ball is missed with the stick‘ which has led to the view that there is no such thing as an ‘on target’ dangerous shot at the goal, it is necessary to point out in Guidance that an assumption of intent to use the body to play the ball based on prior positioning especially when it is beyond playing distance of the ball, is both unsound and unreasonable.
An ‘acceptance of risk’ is confined to acceptance that there is risk of unintentional dangerous play such as deflections and mis-hits (which should nonetheless be penalised) it does not include acceptance of a risk that the player hit will be deliberately targeted or that the ball will be played at them in a reckless way i.e. without consideration for the safety of other players on the part of the player propelling the ball.
In other Rule Guidance, to Rule 9.8. for example, umpires could usefully be reminded:- “A raised shot has to be made at goal, not deliberately (and/or dangerously) at a defender standing either in goal or between the goal and the striker“ (part in colour italics taken from The Lifted Ball Gawley 2001). Which brings us to the need for a fit for purpose definition of a dangerously played ball, not least to avoid the circular arguments concerning what is and is not legitimate evasive action and how the umpire should respond when evasive action is not possible.
Comments made about my observations on the dangerous play by the attacker in the video clip posted on You Tube.
thats dangerous how?/
the defender makes this situation dangerous by running down the line of the goal with no valid attempt to play the ball
the runner shouldn’t have run straight at the dragflicker
this is another penalty corner EVERY TIME. The attacker is allowed to flick the ball at any height from a penalty corner, and the defender is allowed to stop it, but here the defender has stpped the ball with his Body, not his stick, so it is a fowl.
So much for participants knowing the Rules or even much about playing hockey.
Penalty Corner 13.3.
(l). 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
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.
Otherwise, 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.
It would probably be better if the Guidance for the Rule phrase “but this must not be dangerous” concerning a raised shot, was put first instead of last. It might then be read. Some participants are obviously not reading all of the given Rule Guidance or only remember the bits they like. Attention is diverted away from the Guidance to what is a prohibited action ‘dangerous raising of the ball’ , an action by the attacking player, to give reason to penalise the defender and even becomes ‘slanted’ against the defender because of this change of focus.
(Much the same approach was taken with the P.I.T interpretation of the Obstruction Rule the larger portion of which was about physical contact offences by the tackler (also given in the Rule following the Obstruction Rule) with very little attention given in the Obstruction Rule to obstructive play by the player shielding the ball. This so called P.I.T. interpretation (position, intention, timing by the tackler not the player shielding the ball) destroyed the Obstruction Rule before it was removed in 2004)
There also appears to be no understanding that it is not an offence for a defender to run from the goal towards the ball in order to attempt to play the ball with his stick.
An attempt to play the ball with the stick can only be made from within playing distance of the ball. The defender has therefore to close on the ball in order to get within playing distance.That cannot be done without running towards the ball.
The offence mentioned in the Guidance is the playing of the ball with the body having made no attempt at all to play it with the stick. Defending the body with the stick while running towards the ball is using the stick for self defence with the intention of intercepting the shot with the stick. No other assumption can be made about the intention of a penalty corner defending out-runner without clear supporting evidence.
That a player is hit with the ball is not evidence that he intended to be hit with the ball, such an interpretation would make dangerous propelling of the ball an impossibility - but that would fit with the way umpires seem to be coached in respect of an ‘on target’ shot at the goal, which sets up a conflict with the above Guidance of course and with “but this must not be dangerous” of the Rule.
A player would not be admonished not to make a dangerous shot if a shot at the goal could not be dangerous – unless of course there is rule Guidance forbidding an attacker to miss the target and shoot wide of the goal LOL. But then why would a shot wide of the goal be dangerous play and an on-target shot not be? There is no answer offered, except “Because we say so”.
Moving on to situations similar to the one above but where the defender is more than 5m from the ball when hit – What decision should the umpire give?
Who has offended? Obviously if the attacker has played the ball at the defender in a way that endangered him and forced an attempt at self-defence. That should be judged to be dangerous play.
The defender has not offended unless he intentionally plays the ball with the body. At one time there was the possibility of an offence being called against the defender if the defended gained an undue or unfair advantage from an accidental or involuntary ball/body contact,
BUT that applied ONLY if there had been no prior dangerous play by the attacker i.e the contact was not caused by dangerous play by the player who propelled the ball (or one of his team-mates actively preventing a defender using his stick)
AND ‘gained benefit’, as it was called, no longer applies. It was deleted from the 2007-9 Rules of Hockey, then restored on the strength of a ‘note’ during the period 2007-9, but was not returned to the Rules of Hockey in 2009 or since then. To penalise an accidental or forced ball/body contact on the ground of ‘benefit gained’ by the team of the player hit is now incorrect.
One cannot even use semantics to ‘twist’ intended use and make “disadvantaged opponents” create an offence because “disadvantaged opponents” applies only when an offence has been committed, it cannot be (should not be but is) used to ‘create’ an offence from an unintentional or forced breach of Rule which is not an offence . An unintentional breach of Rule 9.11. is not an offence:-
Rule Guidance 9.11.
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.
The ‘bottom line’ is that a player should not propel the ball at an opponent in a way that could result in injury to that opponent if hit with the ball. At the moment any ball propelled at an opponent at knee height or above could be considered dangerous play but there is no Rule or Rule Guidance to that effect – it is an umpire judgement and one that many umpires seem incapable of making correctly.
There is no reason at all to penalise a player hit with the ball unless he intentionally used his body to play the ball – and such intention must be clear and certain. The same standard as is applied to the intentionally lifted hit and was applied to forcing offences, before forcing was removed as an offence in 2011, must be applied to ball/body contact. The vast majority of ball/body contacts should be “play on” situations.
It’s odd how readily umpires have taken to the deletion of ‘forcing’ when one considers their reluctance (and even the outright refusal of some) to stop applying “gained benefit” *(the forcing offence is now “dealt with by other Rules” in which the action under consideration is also an offence . We have in many cases at present the absurdity of the forcing of self-defence (which is dangerous play) from a high shot incorrectly being ignored, combined with penalty against a defender hit with the ball for “benefit gained” or “disadvantaged opponents” even though the defender has not committed an offence and the benefit gained clause was removed from Rule 9.11 years ago.
There is an important distinction to be made between an accidental or forced breach of the ball/body contact Rule – not an offence – and an offence. In the case of ball/body contact an offence occurs ONLY when such contact is made voluntarily (intentionally). There are some individuals who insist that voluntarily does not have the same meaning as intentionally – and there may indeed be a subtle difference – but those who insist there is a difference don’t explain what it is in the context of the Rule Guidance. No explanation has ever been offered by the FIH Rules Committee (previously the FIH HRB) for the change of word.
In the majority of cases, particularly at the higher levels the shooter ought to be given a personal penalty, at least a yellow card, for deliberately targeting (making no attempt whatsoever to avoid hitting) the out-running player with the ball in the way seen in the video – that would be placing the emphasis on safety and also, incidentally, on skill – while penalising dangerous play. The idea that a defender is obliged to allow an attacker to shoot without interference (that is without attempting to close and tackle with the stick) is a nonsense.
This is from a question posted recently on Internet field hockey forum. The original question was ‘slanted’ by an implied criticism of the positioning of the defender, the critical remark has been omitted.
GK is beaten, player comes in to take shot at goal. A defender is positioned on the goal-line ……………. Shot or flick is taken within 5m of the defender and hits defender on the body and goes out.
What call should be made?
There were only two replies made to this question on the forum. The first was , “It depends” and reference to a pinned post on the forum which is also inconclusive; the second was “Penalty stroke“.The second answer is clearly incorrect, the first was not an answer.
(I assume here that a ball that hits a standing defender “on the body” has been raised to above knee height.)
Here is my opinion based on the current Rules of Hockey.
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.
‘Legitimate evasive action’ (which I believe would be better expressed as “the forcing of an opponent to self-defence” an action referred to in John Gawley’s 2001 umpire coaching paper ‘The Lifted Ball’) is not the only definition of a dangerously played ball, there are also objective criterion which apply irrespective of causing an opponent to take evasive action to avoid (or try to avoid) being hit with the ball.
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.
If the ball is raised over an opponent’s stick or body on the ground, even within the circle, it is permitted unless judged to be 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. (My bold. No mention here of height or velocity)
Putting the last clause above with that relating to a shot at goal during a penalty corner which is raised to above knee height, and assuming that rules that apply to flicks and scoops also apply to raised hits (which seems sensible as they are mentioned in the same Rule ); a hit or a flick that is raised to above knee height and at a player who is within 5m, must be considered dangerous play – evasive action is not mentioned in either Rule 9.9 or the penalty corner Rules.
Whether or not a ball raised from within 5m endangers a player has nothing whatsoever to do with his skill level or his reaction times, it depends entirely on the height and velocity of the ball, that is the propensity of that ball to injure anyone it was propelled at – and in any case a ball has endangered a player if self-defence is forced (caused).
It might be acceptable, even if velocity is not mentioned in the Rule or Rule Guidance, to say a ball raised high at a player is not dangerous if it is of low velocity, a lob for example. It is not however, in my view, acceptable to suggest that a raised ball of high velocity is not dangerous because of the presumed skill level of the players. There are no differences in Rules or differences in application of Rule for different levels of play or presumed differences in skill levels. Even the variations to the Rules of Hockey that do exist for International level i.e. Tournament play, are not based on the perceived skills of the players. The two minute suspension for a green card in FIH International Tournaments and variation in substitution procedures are not skill-level based Rule variations.
If a ball will injure a player if he does not defend himself against it then it has endangered him. It is irrelevant to the offence of endangerment (dangerous play) if the defence is successful or unsuccessful, (the player plays the ball with his stick, evades the ball or is hit with it) it is the causing (forcing) by dangerous play of a defensive action to avoid injury that is the offence – in fact defines the offence – the same ball will not be considered dangerous play if it is not propelled at a player. If the ball is successfully defended but nonetheless disadvantages the defender or the umpire wishes to discourage such dangerous play, then the umpire should penalise the player who propelled the ball. A ball may be penalised as dangerous even if successfully defended with a stick, the criteria is endangerment not injury.
Players of high skill level do not necessarily have faster reactions than the average club player and are not exempt from the unexpected or from injury if hit with the ball. In any case attackers of equally high skill level to the defenders opposing them in top level games should have the skill not to propel the ball at an opponent.
It is obvious that ‘in back’ of the answers given (and not given) to the forum question is the prevailing attitude that a different approach is or ought to be taken to a raised shot at the goal than might be taken to a ball raised at a player in mid-field; there are no grounds for this view. The fact that a ball may be intentionally raised with a hit while shooting at the goal does not nullify any Rule concerning playing the ball in a way that endangers another player.
The Rule Guidance would be improved with the addition of reference to velocity and height but it is not ambiguous – any ball raised at above knee height at a player who is within 5m is dangerous play and should be penalised as such, especially if that player or his team are disadvantaged by the offence. There is no reason for the umpire to reward either dangerous play or recklessness or lack of shooting skill just because the ball is propelled at the goal: players cannot legitimately shoot ‘through’ opponents. That unfortunately is not a view shared by all, in fact the opposite view is actively promoted and not just by the ignorant as in this quote: -
“Penalty corners are another story all together I believe in the higher grades the posties should have to wear a mask and with saying that everyone that plays hockey know the risk and still choose to put themselves in the line of fire. Rules state everything goes in the D IF you are having a direct shot at goal if you choose to stand there knowing full well that’s the rule they are there at their own risk. It’s not a wimpy sport if you can’t deal with it don’t play it and stay at home and knit”
but much the same view can be expressed even by (or especially by) umpires and umpire coaches but ‘dressed’ in moderate language,
There is not a great deal of difference between saying “At the higher levels almost no shot will be considered dangerous.” (from an umpire coach, with what “almost” might mean not explained) and “Rules state everything goes in the D IF you are having a direct shot at goal “.
It may well be the case that at higher levels umpires will not penalise dangerous play, because despite Rule Guidance to the contrary, it is in their opinion not dangerous, that is evasive action is not seen as legitimate or a player hit with the ball is judged, without any evidence other than the fact of being hit with the ball, to have intended to use the body to play it.
There is a strong case for the use of existing objective criteria and for the introduction of additional objective criteria to deal with shots made from beyond 5m i.e. up to 15m from a player – subjective judgement alone is clearly not good enough i.e. it is unsafe or is not ‘judgement’ at all, the decision always going against the defender as per the instructions the umpire has been given. The Rules do not state that “everything goes” when a direct shot at goal is being made, that would be the same as saying that “there is a Rule that there is no Rule”, which is illogical. But regrettably umpires, and so of course players, behave as if this is the case.
Acceptance of risk is acceptance of the risk of accidental incidents, such as deflections, only and not of deliberate and/or reckless breaches of Rule.
The correct answer to the question posed at the start is a 15m free to the defence for a clear contravention of ” ball propelled at a player within 5m at above knee height” which, according to Rule Guidance, is dangerous play.
The ball does not of course have to be raised above knee height to be dangerous to a defender who has fallen to the ground. Here is an example of clueless umpiring that illustrates this point.
If we pretend for the moment that there is a ‘gained benefit’ clause (which is clearly necessary to deal with incidents like this) or that the body/ball contact by the defender hit was intentional, then the first ball/body contact should have been penalised and a penalty stroke awarded.
But the umpire did not intervene, he allowed a second shot by another attacker. That second shot was made into the body of the defender, who was still on the ground, that shot was clearly dangerous and reckless (the attacking player had time and choices). The umpire should have then awarded a 15m, he should not, having played ‘advantage’, allowing a second shot, have reverted to a penalty stroke for the first contact and nor should he have awarded a penalty stroke for the second. As the UMB points out, whistle timing is critical and common sense should be applied.
.
This is a post made on Saturday 2nd May 2012 on an Internet field hockey forum. The premise made in it and the responses to it, which included contributions from an umpire coach and an International umpire would be astonishing if they were not so common that they are now considered ‘accepted’.
(click on picture for clearer image)
What is the problem? It is the assertion by the poster and the acceptance by others (who do know better but act as if they don’t) that there can be no question that an accidental foot/ball contact can be anything but a penalty corner. The basic error, the penalising of the accidental foot contact, was ignored (or perhaps not even noticed so ‘accepted’ is it) and there was discussion of the timing issue, which was in the circumstances irrelevant – a case of ‘not seeing the wood for the trees’.
The problem is, as usual, that umpires are ignoring the Rule Guidance given with the Rule in the Rules of Hockey. Here are the relevant clauses of the Rule Guidance.
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.
This clause;- It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player. – is directly contradicted by the assumption made in the post that an accidental ball/body contact is an offence. The rest of the Rule Guidance describes circumstances in which ball/body contact may be an offence. The Rule Guidance is poorly written but not ambiguous, for an offence to occur there has to be intent to make contact with the ball with the body.
Why are umpires being coached differently?
The ‘official’ line – that is from the umpire coaches and umpires themselves – as there isn’t an official line that contradicts the Rule Guidance – seems to be that it is consistent to always regard all ball/body contact as an offence . This is the ‘accepted’ course (the easy one). Penalty is then always applied against the player hit with the ball when there is a ball/body contact except when the award of a penalty would be less of an advantage to opponents than allowing play to continue. So a correct (in compliance with Rule) or fair decision is actually irrelevant as long as all such incidents are treated in the same way, that is irrespective of intent (and even when the ball body contact is obviously deliberately forced by an opponent).
This ‘line’ is followed up with 1) “It is what players expect” – Well yes it would be, if ball/body contact is always seen by umpires as an offence, umpires create such expectation.
and
2) It is what ‘the FIH’ want. This is an obviously untrue, what ‘the FIH’ want is set out in the Rules of Hockey which have the approval of the FIH Executive, the supreme authority.
So why do umpires who don’t apply the Rules according to the given Rules Guidance get appointed to matches?
I don’t know, maybe it is because umpires appoint umpires and the ‘system’ is self-perpetuating. There is certainly no effort being made to correct such anomalies of interpretation and application, in fact they increase year on year (which creates the perception among players and spectators that the Rules and Rule Guidance are being changed), there is for example additional (sic)’Rule Guidance’ in the Umpire Managers Briefing for Umpires at FIH Tournaments (UMB), in the Free Hit section this year (2011-13) , which does not appear in the Rules of Hockey – i.e. it is not actually Rule Guidance.
The Obstruction Rule has ‘lost’ ball shielding to prevent a tackle as an offence and the possibility of dangerous play, when an ‘on target’ shot at goal is made, has been ‘lost’ (i.e. is ignored). The Obstruction Rule is still in the rulebook and ‘legitimate evasive action’ still defines a dangerously played ball but, as with intention in relation to ball/body contact, these Rules and Rule Guidance are generally just ignoredand this has become ‘accepted’.
A novice umpire joining the ranks of the umpiring fraternity finds herself or himself in much the same position as a recruit to a police force that is corrupt. The novice, on discovering this, has no idea how far up the line of command the corruption extends, but is certain that it extends beyond her/his own locality. What are the choices? 1) Leave the force and forget it. 2) Leave the force and try to fight what is happening from the outside. 3) Try to fight the system from the inside as a practicing umpire. 4) Go along with what is happening – and even preach it to get promotion.
Too many would be umpires, who become disenchanted when they realize what has happened and is happening, take the first course. Too many take the last.
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 2004A player must not raise the ball at another playerand 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 Ruleshttp://wp.me/p3tNmd-3
Field Hockey: Dangerous play and ball/body contact myths
There are a number assertions for which no support in Rule or Rule Guidance is to be found but which are firmly held to be true by many participants. By umpires (because of coaching and observed ‘practice’) and by players (because of the way umpires apply the Rules). The latter is called ‘player expectation’ by umpires and is used as a justification for continuing to interpret and apply the Rule in the way they do. This process gives rise to ‘urban myths’. I am going to explore here those myths connected to the various Rules which are brought to bear when one player plays the ball at or into another, or a player ‘plays’ the ball with their body, intentionally or otherwise.
The myths
The assertions made in these ‘myths’ are generally corruption, misinterpretation or even inversion of Rules or the Rules Guidance. Occasionally they are pure invention, the creation of a myth based on the acceptance of a previous evolved myth called ‘practice’.
“All ball/body contacts should be penalised” (are offences). A contradiction of the Rule Guidance 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.
. “Defenders have an obligation to defend their feet”(and should be penalised if they fail to do so even when contact is forced by an opponent). Here an assumption is made that any defender positioned to intercept the ball or positioning to tackle, who is hit with the ball, intended to be so hit (without the intent there would be no offence). There are no grounds for such a sweeping assumption, each incident must be judged separately on clear evidence of intent or willingness to be hit with the ball.
The speed with which the offence of forcing such contact (specifically an offence until 1st January 2011) has been turned into an offence by the player the ball is forced into, is astonishing. Such forcing is now supposed to be dealt with by “other Rules”so it should still be considered an offence – the problem is that the “other Rules” have not been identified by the Rules Committee, but dangerous play and intimidation are both possibilities where the forcing is powerfully done.
. “All ball/body contacts are of benefit or advantage to the player making the contact and disadvantage opponents”. Not only is this untrue it is irrelevant. Gaining benefit from a ball/body contact is not an offence and nor does it create an offence. The gaining of a benefit is mentioned in the Rules in relation to the playing of advantage when an offence has been committed. It is no longer used to create an offence from a breach of Rule (such as stopping the ball with the body) that was not an offence (because it was not intentional). Advantage : it is not necessary for every offence to be penalised when no benefit is gained by the offender ; unnecessary interruptions to the flow of the match cause undue delay and irritation”.
Note this advice to umpires is written in relation to offences, not unintentional breaches of Rule.
The only other reference to gaining benefit is in relation to time-wasting.
In the absence of an offence, like deliberate time-wasting, disadvantaging opponents is part of the game, being competitive – tackling, scoring goals etc. etc.
.
“Defenders who are positioned behind their sticks intend to play the ball with their body if they miss it with the stick. Without clear evidence of intent to use the body to play the ball i.e. of an offence, there is no reason a player should not be directly behind the stick when stopping the ball . Positioning the body behind the stick is a standard playing technique when it is not known to which side of the body the ball might be played and is not of itself evidence of intent to play the ball with the body – the assumption must be that if the player misses the ball with the stick when attempting to play it with the stick, such a miss is unintentional, and in such circumstances body position is not relevant (assuming the player is on her/his feet rather than lying or sitting or kneeling on the ground)
.
“A defender who is positioned on/in front of the goal-line when hit with the ball must be penalised with a penalty stroke” I have heard this one trotted out at Level One umpire induction courses on several occasions but it can be true only when there has been no prior dangerous play i.e. the shot is not dangerous and the player hit has clearly and intentionally played the ball with the body rather than the stick.
Certainty that there has been a deliberate offence is required before a penalty stroke may be awarded. The withdrawal of the ‘gains benefit’ clause has, unfortunately, removed the only ground on which the accidental prevention of a goal with the body could have been penalised.
.
“A defender positioned on the goal-line causes danger”. It is an illogical inversion of fact to suggest that the positioning of the defender is the cause of dangerous play. Such positioning can cause the play of the player propelling the ball to be dangerous but does not cause the play that is dangerous. If the ball is not propelled at (the position of) another player there can be no dangerously played ball. The distinction may seem subtle even though it isn’t, and language can used to bamboozle those not paying attention, but one might just as well say that the ground causes rain to make it wet, as suggest that defensive positioning prior to the ball being propelled causes dangerous play or is dangerous play.
What is true is that any player who raises the ball at another player at a velocity that could cause injury to that player has endangered that player i.e. has played the ball in a way that is dangerous to others.
.
“A defender who positions on the goal-line accepts any risk of so positioning” ( Is “asking for it”).
FIH statement from the Preface to the Rules of Hockey.
Responsibility and Liability Participants in hockey must be aware of the Rules of Hockey and of other information in this publication. They are expected to perform according to the Rules. Emphasis is placed on safety. Everyone involved in the game must act with consideration for the safety of others.
All players accept the risk of accidental injury but do not, and cannot be expected to, accept risks associated with any action by another participant that is a breach of the Rules.
For example Rule 13.3.1 (concerning second and subsequent shots at goal during a penalty corner – which is the same criteria as in open play) It is permitted to raise the ball to any height (while shooting at the goal) but this must not be dangerous. Defenders do not accept the risk (and nor should they be asked or expected to) that a ball will be intentionally propelled at their position (at them) in a dangerous or reckless way. They do accept the risk of, for example, accidental deflections, rebounds and miss-hits. It is disingenuous for a shooter to claim s/he was shooting at the goal and not at the player who was, prior to the shot, positioned in front of the goal on the line of the shot or moving towards the ball on that line. The responsibility to play without endangering another player applies, as does the liability for doing so.
.
“An ‘on target’ shot at the goal cannot be dangerous play.” This myth is (a very dangerous) invention. It seems to be based on (the unfortunate) fact that there is now no means of penalizing a shooter for reckless or dangerous play when a first shot at the goal at a penalty corner is propelled at an opponent at below knee height. Despite there being no height limit mentioned in Conduct of Play Rules, we have an exception to the possibility of ‘dangerously played ball’ just for the penalty corner shot – any defender struck with a shot which is below knee height must be, – penalised with another penalty corner, this is mandatory (so much for the subjective judgement of umpires). I consider this an aberration because a defender will be penalised even if obviously trying to play the ball with her/his stick, and irrespective of any recklessness or intimidation on the part of the shooter, this is contrary to other Rule.
. “Defenders have time to move out of the way of a ball that is propelled (raised) at them from more than 5m, so such a ball cannot be dangerous play.” An invention using inverted logic. 5m is the minimum distance within which a ball raised at an opponent above knee height will be considered dangerous, not a maximum distance, beyond which dangerous play is impossible. A ball propelled at another player could be considered dangerous play at any distance on the field of play, there is no upper limit.
.
“Defenders voluntarily play the ball with the body if they had time to move out of the way of a shot, don’t do so and are hit with the ball.“ There has to be clear intent to play the ball with the body. Voluntarily means willingly. A player is not willingly hit with the ball if s/he is trying to play it with the stick or is unsighted and unaware of the path of the ball or if attempting, but not succeeding, to take evasive action. To suggest that a player who could have moved out of the path of the ball (was physically able to do so) and therefore should have done so, has committed an offence if s/he doesn’t do so, is simply assuming intent whenever a player is hit with the ball. To suggest that there is a significant difference between intentionally and voluntarily in this context is ‘playing with semantics’ in an effort to make words mean what they are wanted to mean.
Another type of willingness to be hit with the ball might arise if a benefit was to be gained by being so hit but an umpire would have to be certain of the intent before penalising, there must be evidence not just an assumption.
‘Playing’ with semantics and ‘bending over back-wards’ to penalise a player hit with the ball just encourages reckless and dangerous play from any player propelling the ball towards/through opponents and achieves the opposite of the purpose of the Rule. Umpires should not be assisting either party to circumvent Rule or the intent of the Rule – even if that might make the game more interesting or spectacular; it is not the job of an umpire to provide entertainment.
.
“Whether or not a ball propelled at a player is a dangerously played ball depends on the level of play of the players, that is on the ability or skill of the players concerned.” This seems plausible until one considers what it is that makes any ball dangerous to any player (all players having approximately the same reactions times and all being of ‘flesh and bone’). It is the potential of the propelled ball to injure if the player is hit with it. That potential to injure and the degree of possible injury depend on the velocity of the ball and the height at which it is propelled. A player who is able to play a high ball that has been propelled at her/him has been as much endangered by that ball as a player who cannot. It is endangerment not actual injury that makes a ball dangerous. A ball that forces self-defence (rather than the taking of evasive action) to avoid injury, would be a better description of a dangerously played ball. The distance from the defending player the ball is propelled from is relevant only inasmuch as beyond a certain distanced, depending on ball velocity, it will be possible for the player to react to the ball (if s/he is aware of its path).
What goes to the root of the problem of the dealing with the ‘dangerously played ball’, is that it is a subjective judgement by the umpire. Objective criteria such as height and distance are used in only a very limited way, velocity is not mentioned at all. The plain fact is that a ball that is raised at high velocity at any player is potentially dangerous to that player, it forces her/him to respond to avoid injury, irrespective of his ability or skill to avoid or cope with the danger presented.
.
“An out-running defender at a penalty corner who runs towards the ball is a “suicide runner”, because s/he is“running down the barrel”, and should be penalised for dangerous play.”
Unless such a defending player clearly intends to use the body and not the stick to play the ball there is no offence. Terms such as ‘suicide runner’ should never have been used in this context. The first shot at goal during a penalty corner does not have to be raised or propelled from a set position, the scenario is presented is false. It is as if an out-runner were running into the path of a projectile, compulsorily fired, on a short fuse, from a static gun position – the truth is the shooter has choices and should not choose to endanger an opponent who is closing on the ball.
.
“A defender who closes on the ball when it is in the possession of an attacker who is taking a shot at the goal (or is about to) is guilty of dangerous play.”
Unless such a defending player is clearly intends to use the body and not the stick to play the ball, s/he has not committed an offence. A defender is entitled to defend and that includes closing on the ball and attempting to block the shot with the stick or tackle for the ball.
.
The relevant Rules.
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.
9.9 Players must not intentionally raise the ball from a hit except for a shot at goal. 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. If an opponent is clearly running into the shot or into the attacker without attempting to play the ball with their stick, they should be penalised for dangerous play.
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.
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. 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.
Otherwise,(that is if the defender is not attempting to play at the ball with their stick) 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 definition of a dangerously played ball is that it is “a ball that causes legitimate evasive action”. That statement alone should have been sufficient to prevent the creation of several myths, but it tells us only (and only in part) what a dangerously played ball is, not what other actions could constitute dangerous play, or even what ‘legitimate’ means (does it mean legal or genuine?) or what could possibly make any evasive action taken to avoid injury not legitimate.
These omissions have provided scope for ‘interpretation’ that have led to to various conclusions and this has been taken full advantage of. Why anyone would want to take such advantage to invert a previously accepted meaning of ‘dangerously played’ and even to remove the concept of the dangerously played ball from the game in certain circumstances, generally when what might be considered dangerous play is a shot at the goal, is outside the scope of this article.
The existence of the term ‘legitimate evasive action’ lends credence to the argument that evasive action can be legitimate in both meanings of the word i.e. necessary (or genuine) and also legal (or within the Rules).
Evasive action is not necessary, or indeed even a possibility, if a defending player is not positioned in the path of a ball that has been propelled by another player, such evasive action defines and is caused and is legitimized, by a dangerously played ball.
Being positioned in the defended goal or anywhere else (except the opponents’ goal) must be therefore be legal i.e. legitimate play, because otherwise no evasive action could ever be be legitimate and the term would not be used. Whether or not evasive action is legitimate i.e. necessary or genuine is a matter of umpire judgement, but it is also a player judgement, depending entirely on circumstances a player finds herself/ himself in. When the ball is raised high at a player at high velocity (and we here talking of a ball propelled at anything from 60 -100 mph), from within 14m, is difficult to see how an umpire could declare evasive action as unnecessary by any player at any level. (‘High’, in terms of height, could usefully be defined as an objective criteria).
It is not illegal for a defender to defend the goal either by staying in the goal on the goal-line or in front of the goal-line, nor is illegal for a defender to close down on an attacker about to shoot to try to intercept the ball with the stick or tackle for the ball with the stick, the goal could not be defended if a defender was not allowed to be in or to defend in the area between a shooter and the goal.
Legitimate evasive action is not in fact a sufficient description of a dangerously played ball when the ball is propelled at another player in a way that could endanger them, because evasive action is not always successful and because defenders may also be endangered when they have not taken or even attempted to take evasive action, either because they were physically unable to do so (lack of time to react) or because they were unaware that evasive action might be necessary. Either could be the case if a defending player was unsighted at the time the ball was propelled in their direction. It is also more than possible (very likely) that an umpire would not know if a defending player was unsighted when the ball was propelled in their direction.
I know it ‘sucks’ but the fact that it is against the Rules to propel the ball at another player in a way that endangers them, makes it much more difficult to score a goal than it would otherwise be. And playing the ball at or into the legs or feet of an opponent is not a legitimate way to ‘win’ a free or a penalty corner – in fact penalties against opponents are not (or should not be) ‘won’ (‘manufactured’) intentionally at all – passing and dribbling skills have to be developed and then used in a legitimate way.
.
Link to Index of Ruleshttp://wp.me/p3tNmd-3
