I am intrigued that it can be said that the umpire missed the body contact completely and at the same time ‘played advantage’ – he can’t have done both can he? He either didn’t see the contact, so could not make a decision based on it, or he did see it but, because the attackers regained possession of the ball in a good shooting position (after dangerous play by the goalkeeper which caused the ball/body contact), played an advantage.
.
Because the ball/body contact was caused by prior dangerous play – and was therefore not an offence – whether or not the umpire saw it is in fact irrelevant – it’s a play-on situation unless the goalkeeper is penalised immediately for kicking a ball high at another player (hit or not)
Once play had continued to the point of a second shot at the goal, the dangerous kick-out by the goalkeeper also became irrelevant. Reverting to that incident for a decision after the follow-up shot had been taken was not a possibility (Advantage Rules). To focus entirely on this part of the play during review was not correct. Clearly the ball/body contact (that was questioned by the defenders) was forced by the dangerous play of the goalkeeper and could not in those circumstances be penalised – so a 15m free ball would not have been correct.
. The correct decision is arrived at by considering what would have been the outcome if the defender on the line had not stopped the ball going into the goal with his feet, but had instead stopped it cleanly with his stick (or missed it entirely) - that an advantage has been played cannot be ignored - the answer surely is “Play on”.
But the defender did prevent a goal off the second shot because of a foot contact. The foot contact was however clearly not intentional (I have no idea what ‘voluntarily’ might mean in these circumstances) – so what then ? Invoke the deleted ‘gained benefit’ exception to the Rule Guidance (which was in place to deal fairly with just this sort of incident) or “Play on”?
After the video referral the umpire does neither, he awards a penalty corner. Why, if the attacker’s ball/body contact was not going to be penalised (penalising it being the only other decision possible) did he withdraw the penalty stroke decision?
This is not a decision arrived at instantly but after advice from the video umpire – however both umpires focused entirely on the completely irrelevant ball/body contact (obviously because that was the question asked) and forgot all else (the other pitch umpire did not it seems offer any opinion regarding advantage played i.e. the subsequent shot at the goal).
It’s quite incredible that ‘from the comfort of their chairs’ and presumably after long consideration, forum umpires think it okay to allow the second shot and then penalise the goalkeeper for the kick-out (or was a penalty corner awarded because of the foot contact in front of the goal-line? That seems unlikely).
It seems to me that a penalty corner was the only decision, from the alternative available ( penalty stroke, play on) that could not be correct.
I’d like to know WHY a penalty corner was awarded.
(I will try later to put together another video of the action only, with repeats and slow-motion and add it to this article)
Conforming to laws or rules or to accepted or established principles or standards.
Valid – able to be defended with logic or justification as necessary.
Genuine
Legitimate evasive action.
An action taken to evade the ball which is necessary to avoid the possibility of being injured by it.
A dangerously played ball is a ball propelled by one player in a way that gives cause for legitimate evasive action by another player. As always it is necessary to give the relevant 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.
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.
.
The above Rules are all that are given in the Rules of Hockey concerning the dangerous playing of the ball in open play.
The Penalty Corner Rules 13.3. further limit A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous by declaring that any stroke that raises the ball and strikes an opponent who is within 5m, on or above the knee is to be penalised as dangerous play.
And, in addition to the height restriction of 460mm on a first hit shot at the goal
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.
Interpretation.
The syntax is poor but above Rule Guidance 13.3.l. obviously must, as it clearly states, relate to second and subsequent hits at the goal (the first being specifically restricted), and to all flicks, deflections and scoops be they first shots at the goal or subsequent shots at the goal. To permit a first flick shot to be exempt from the Rule governing dangerous play, but to apply the Rule to any subsequent flick-shot would not be logical, especially when the first hit-shot at the goal is severely height restricted and the different styles of shot travel at similar velocity
In any phase of play, open or penalty, any ball that is raised at a player, may be judged by the umpire to have caused legitimate evasive action and therefore to be dangerous play. Raised to what height? The Umpire Manager’s Briefing for Umpires declares: Low balls over defenders sticks in a controlled manner that hit half shin-pad are not dangerous. It follows that any ball raised at a player (especially with a wild or uncontrolled stroke) to above half shin-pad height (approximately 30cms?) may, in any umpire’s judgement, be considered in a particular circumstance, for example, from close range, to have been dangerous play.
A ball raised at a player at any height above knee height may be considered by an umpire to have been dangerously propelled – to have caused legitimate evasive action -even at 10m or 15m from the player endangered, in fact at any distance; there is no limiting distance given in the Rules of Hockey. This makes sense when it is realized that a ball with a velocity of 100 kph (not an unusual speed for a drag flick at the goal or a ball ‘accidentally’ hit across the goal in the circle) will travel approximately 27.78 meters in one second, and players are generally unable to respond effectively to the path of such a ball – once it has been located and is being tracked – in less than 0.5 secs. i.e. players may be unable to defend themselves.
So much for the Rules of Hockey, now to turn to ‘practice’.
This post was the opener for a thread on a hockey related website about the ‘gap’ between the written Rules, the Rule Guidance embedded in them, and Rule application.
UmpireHockey.com. The photos below from the USA v Belgium 11~12 consolation game in which #20 USA scores a goal, putting the ball past the shoulder of a Belgium player #5.
(Rule 9.8 and Rule 9.9 and the embedded Guidance with each – which I have posted above – were then set out).
I’ve always taken that to mean that if the ball is flicked, scooped, OR HIT towards an opponent within 5m it is considered dangerous.
Of course, I’ve also always considered that a player can’t always protect themselves from danger with legitimate evasive action—and that that is part of my job. In fact, I’ve always thought that legitimate evasive action was there so we wouldn’t turn into soccer/football having people trying to win Golden Globes and Academy Awards by faking that they were endangered.
And, finally, I’m predicting that we’ll have some (like this particular umpire has done) say that all things go with shots on goal. To which I say, we agree therefore that there is gap between what’s in the rule book, including the embedded guidance, and the briefing and what we understand to be the current practice. And, of course, what would the call have been if this had happened at the midfield line, consistency anyone?
Aren’t these gaps worth closing?
(I have replaced the photo stills with video – which was available on-line at the time of these posts, so available to be seen by the contributors, but could not be downloaded to the web-site at that time. The video also contains another goalmouth incident and decision by the same umpire, which is interesting in the context of the discussion)
The subsequent argument carried on over seven pages of posts. I have selected just two of the contributors, Nij and Keely, both of a view opposite to my own. I believe these two say in their posts (despite the evasions, gobbledygook and contradictions, which make it difficult to know just what it is they are suggesting is Rule) all that needs to be said to justify the abandonment of the subjective judgement of legitimate evasive action as a criteria for a dangerously played ball and the institution of objective criterion in its place.
Nij.
Deegum said: There has never, to my know/edge been anything in the rules to suggest that outfield players defending the goal are endangering themselves{unless they move Into the path of a shot
Except for the large number of times, surely, that others have told you why this is.
A person who chooses to stand in a place where they know the ball can be lifted into, without making any attempt to prevent themselves being hit, is placing themselves in danger. And to that, I would also add: what moron defender is trying to stop the shot directly? This is the goalkeeper’s job; the defender should be stopping the shot from being able to happen in the first place, not hoping to get a FHD from someone who doesn’t umpire the same way as 99% of all others (including at the highest levels).
Nij.
Deegum said: umpires adhering to ‘current practice’ in this area, may find themselves having failed in their duty of care to protect players from unnecessary and avoidable danger
[mod edit: unnecessary expletive deleted] ‘
The player who chooses to stand on that line, knowing the ball can and will be raised occasionally, is doing everything possible to create danger short of actively raising the ball at players themselves. No umpire regardless of their level, can prevent a player from being stupid before they act stupidly if the stupid player in question has made up their minds to do so already.
Neither I nor any other umpire who follows the current and F1H preferred interpretation can be blamed for what happens. You’re right that the danger is unnecessary and avoidable: you are entirely wrong on who is most responsible for allowing it to happen, and on who is most able to prevent it.
You say that attackers should learn to shoot at spaces or gaps. 1 say that defenders should learn how to bloody defend: you are there to tackle or intercept. Let your goalkeeper do their damn job and stop the shots, that’s why they are wearing pads, not you.
“but, Judge, It is current practice to allow this” would not, I’d guess, carry much weight in a US injury damages case .
A person who chooses to play a sport, e.g. field hockey knowing that there is a risk of injury does so of their own accord. Those who officiate the match cannot be blamed for it happening, when they have done what is reasonable, when the player has done something unreasonable.
Diligent likes this.
Nij
Kilmory said:But is this ignoring the fact that the lilted shot, flick or scoop towards goal is allowed – unless it is dangerous? I would counter that the defender, standing in a set position, can reasonably expect the ball to be played to miss them. if they believed the rules as written they would know that the ball cannot be raised into them.
The ball is being raised into the goal. A defender should be quite able to stand outside the line of the goal, and use their stick to play at the ball
And finally,the person most able to prevent the danger is the person who has control of the ball.
Except they are not the only person able to prevent the danger.
If the defender tries to play an aerial past an attacker from a FHD, with the attacker jumping into the shot instead of standing low and using their stick to block it, then who has made it dangerous? The player raising the ball has every right to do so, where their opponent could have easily prevented any danger from occurring and played the ball.
The same applies to the shot at goal. The defender could have stood outside the line of the goal, and used their stick (at any height, I also note) to stop or deflect the ball. More, they could have instead allowed the goalkeeper to stand inside the line of the goal, and gone to make a tackle or intercept that prevents the attacker being able to shoot in the first place.
Basically, It comes down to what you believe the phrase ‘position themselves with the intention’ means. I would say it means moves into the path of a ball which has already been struck, YOU obviously feel It means standing still in a legitimate part of the pitch.
Position themselves with the intention of standing where they know the ball can and will be raised, whilst having other options (options which should make far more sense for any player who wants to both not get hurt and help defend the goal).
Knowing that they have a goalkeeper who can stand there and who has practised stopping shots; who is wearing a large amount of padding; which the defender themselves is certainly not. Knowing they could simply take a step or two to the left and still be able to play the ball (or, and is this such a contentious idea? Go and tackle the shooter, or stop them from shooting in the first place). Knowing that the ball can, and often will be raised into the goal.
They know all of that, and they have chosen to stand in the line of the goal. They have done everything they possibly could to make it dangerous to themselves, and neither I nor the majority of umpires will penalise the attacker for it.
I have heard it used even if the rule contradicts it (e.g. defender hit above knee from a PC inside 5m).
If a rule is being directly contradicted, by saying that a player within 5 metres hit above the knee by a (drag) flick at a PC and being told it’s a shot at goal so not dangerous, then that’s not an issue of the current practise being wrong by the rules, it’s a case of an umpire applying the wrong rules to a situation and making the wrong call.
Nij
Justin said: I hope that no-one is suggesting that, because no one was injured on the goal-line (in the the Ogs), that therefore there were no dangerous shots .
The definition says that if LEA is taken, then it’s dangerous …….and I’m sure we all saw players taking LEA on the goal-lines (I certainly did)
I would say that In fact. It’s not legitimate evasive action: to move yourself into the shot first, and then out of it again when you decide that “actually, I’d rather not be hit today..”. It might be dangerous in the non-rule-definition sense, but that’s caused by the defender standing somewhere silly, as carefully explained above.
Keely
UmpireHockey said: Hmm. I think we could charge the Olympian to be skilful enough to place the ball into a position that no one would consider dangerous. If she’s all that good to narrowly miss a player’s upper body/head, she should be just as skillful to play the ball down below the defender’s knees where there was even more open space into the goal. This shot caused the defender, who is allowed to take up any position on the field, to take legitimate evasive action from a shot that was taken from less than 2 meters away—let alone being less that 5 meters. I believe that’s how danger is defined in the book, right? So, why would the current practice differ? Why would there be a gap?
You want a shot that “no one would consider dangerous”? I’m telling you that no one at that level considers that example dangerous. The attacker has a GK on the ground who can possibly block a low shot, and a second defender reaching her stick out to block – that’s right – the low shot. In order to score, she must raise the ball high into a net that stands at 2.14m. She has only a narrow gap between the space taken by the defending player who cannot by the rules of the game use her body to stop the ball and the side post, and she aims for that gap- The defender may or may not have taken evasive action, but the key word is ‘legitimate’ – and at that level, it is not legitimate to stand blocking the net with one’s body and then duck and claim danger when the ball is put past you.
So that’s the big secret, 1 guess: the word legitimate.
It would not be legitimate to stack five field players across the goal, standing on the goal line, and then claim that any shot that is raised over knee height or hit at high velocity lower than that in an effort to score is dangerous. This would be the natural result of any objective codification of danger in the way that you are lobbying for.
Again, the gap is not within the rules, which are written with subjectivity in mind so that every level of the game can be umpired property and consistency within that level, but in what you believe should be called and what was actually called.
Justin said:It would be interesting to hear, from an international umpire, some examples of what the elite corps DOES regard as ‘dangerous play’, and preferably a definition
Just to say It Is a subjective judgement means that every umpire will have his/her own personal criteria regarding what they will or will not penalise. It also means that I’d be just as correct in blowing FHD for a player hit on the head, as someone else who’d give a PS …both subjectively deciding that it was or was not dangerous. Of course, the UM (with his own criteria) might not agree! Not an ideal recipe for consistency…we must surely be able to do better than that?
You’ve been far less than interested in hearing from me, Justin, and the example I already gave above so I guess you mean other international umpires (maybe males?). If I presented you with a definition, you’d say it’s not in the rule book so it can’t possibly be binding on anyone else.
Strangely enough, it seems that at the highest levels we still are very consistent, regardless of how little you think of the recipe.
UmpireHockey.com said:We say, “We’re a litigious society.” We are held to a higher standard, and we–in turn – have a higher expectation of items like written documents. The written documents in hockey are the rule book and the briefing, The FIRST place the lawyers are going to look is in the rule book. To defend yourself if the book won’t, we’d get to use the briefing, we would NOT get to use the ‘current practice’ . Uh, I mean we would use it but then …the laughing would begin.
I would encourage you and any other contributor who is NOT a lawyer to hesitate in expressing opinions on the pertinent legal principles and how potential litigation may or may not proceed.
Nij
deegum said: Nij“when the player has done something unreasonable”
Such as standing in the most advantageous place to intercept the ball – in a manner that has been accepted for what ? 70 years? Without any relevant change of rule, it becomes an intent to commit an offence?
The goal-line is definitely not the most advantageous place to intercept the ball.
Unless you’re better at stopping a 100+ kmh shot which could be anywhere in a 7 square metre area using an object with perhaps one one-hundred-fiftieth that size, than placing your stick in front of a
stationary/slow-moving ball which is in a very specific place in such a way that has a much better chance of stopping the ball than not stopping it, then saying that the goalmouth is the best place to stop the shot from, is just plain absurd.
EDIT: ask any goalkeeper who knows what they’re doing, even, when somebody is going to get a free chance to shoot, unmarked coming into the circle, what’s the first thing you do? Cut down the angle.
You don’t stand back and let them bash it towards the goal, then hope you can react fast enough. You get your body and pads out in front of the ball and stop the shot from getting anywhere near the goal in the first place.
If the plan of somebody who can use anything they like, with much more protection and much greater blocking area, is to get right up in front of the shot, then why in any blazing hell would a defender think they’ve got a better chance of stopping it from on the line!?
Nij
UmpireHockey.com said: If a player on the goat-fine is in an illegitimate position then when they make an amazing stick save of a shot that would otherwise cross the goal-line, one could argue for the award of a penalty stroke because the player has illegally stopped the ball from crossing the goal-line.
I don’t know that I’ve seen such a well-crafted strawperson before. I’m sure that Burning Man Project might be interested in your technique.
It’s not an offence to stand on the line and play the ball legally. It is an offence to stand on the line and play the ball illegally.
Is this such a complicated thing to understand, without trying to make it sound anything like it isn’t?
Keely
Justin said: (following an analogy from base-ball posted by Keely) OK, but what happens when the pitcher lets off a wild one (accidentally or not) which hits the batter, standing Quite legally where he should be?
Then the batter gets a free pass to first base (automatic walk) as a penalty. If he does it in a manner the umpire deems intentional, the pitcher gets thrown out of the game.
Justin said; I s’pose you’d say that would be like a DFer hitting a player standing OUTside the post? And, if the batter stood ON the plate he’d be ‘fair game’? although of course he wouldn’t…apart from the risk, he couldn’t hit a fair pitch from there-!
Exactly. Because unless you have privileges granted by the rules that allow you to use your body to block the ball and the necessary equipment to protect yourself against injury from fulfilling that designated role in the game, you shouldn’t be there. If you make that choice, it’s your risk. If you’re successful in legally saving the ball, great. But you also bear the flip side.
Justin said: But it seems crazy/illogical that just outside the post it’s regarded as dangerous, but just inside it’s allegedly legal to hit a defender!
Crazy or illogical to you and a tiny minority over-represented in FHF discussions, but completely expected and logical to me and the immense majority of hockey and sporting people. And this here is the real crux of the argument.
Nij
Deegum said: Could you tell me how a defender could reliably demonstrate their intention NOT to use their body as a back up- for I can assure you that many defenders do not so intend?
By not placing their body in the line of any shot which is going into the goal. This has been said so many times now, I do begin to think you’re deliberately ignoring the responses given to you and the explanations thereof.
Deegum said:Seems pretty stupid to me to use the body under the present ‘interpretation’ when a PS, i.e. a near certain goal, and a possibly injured star player, result.
Seems pretty stupid to me too, which is why I’ve described such players often as complete morons, but hey: that’s what they’re doing. They know what will happen as a result of their actions, and they do it anyway. Pretending otherwise would be just be silly. Unless you want to portray this as some kind of horrible monster attacker raising the ball at the innocent heroic defender story, of course, which would be naive at best.
They want the benefit of being able to stand there when they succeed in saving a goal with their stick, they’ll get the penalty applied for failing by preventing a goal with their body. They know this. The umpires know it. Everybody is on the same page in this situation, except for those lone stalwart Guardians Of The Old Way Of Doing Things.
Deegum said:So the meaning of English has changed?
Yes, it being a live language, which has words added or altered every single day as their common interpretation becomes different according to the way it is used and understood. Unlike for example Latin, which is unchanging and thus considered dead, in linguistic terminology.
Nij
Deegum said: Could you tell me how a defender could reliably demonstrate their intention NOT to use their body as a back up.
Funny, I could have sworn someone answered this.
By not placing their body in the line of any shot which is going into the goal.
*************************
So there we are, two umpires who are convinced that a defender has no business defending the goal on a line between a shooter and the goal, and if a defender does so position they do so with the intention of using the body to play the ball and should be penalised if hit with the ball, irrespective of any evasive action, attempt to play the ball with their stick or any action of the shooter. Moreover this is the view of anyone who is not a stupid moron and of the immense majority of hockey and sporting people – opinion but no reason offered, no definitions and nothing from the Rules of Hockey or (clutching at straws) even the Umpire Manager’s Briefing for Umpires.
It is clear that the ball is not hit at the defender but it is hit up and across her and the lean back she makes to ensure the ball does not hit her is I think justified. The shot is certainly intimidating (an offence) and wild/reckless (an offence) as it could just as easily have been hit into the goal at the near post and along the ground. It is certainly the sort of play that ought to be discouraged because it is potentially lethal.
.
In the second half of the game the Belgium team attacking the same goal were awarded a penalty corner for dangerous play by the American goalkeeper. The ball deflected off the goalkeeper’s pads rising to about a meter beyond a Belgium attacker who was on her knees and reaching or diving to play at a cross-ball. The ball was less than a meter off the ground as it passed by the attacker; it was not propelled across her and it was not at her – yet the umpire penalised the goalkeeper. If that deflection off the goalkeeper was dangerous play so was the shot made past the defender in the first half. So what is going on? Where is the consistency Keely referred to?
.
There is one clue. That umpire is the same one who announced to a Spanish defender, who was hit on the thigh with a raised edge-hit while defending the goal in a match against China during the 2010 World Cup, that a shot made at the goal cannot be dangerous (which is an abandonment of the subjective judgement of shots – if they can’t be dangerous no judgement need be made). But, to grasp at another straw, in the Rules concerning penalties we are given:
.
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.
.
So a raised shot at the goal can be considered to be dangerous play when made during a penalty corner – otherwise there would be no need of the admonishment “but this must not be dangerous” – I don’t think it stretching the Rules of Hockey too much to suggest that a raised shot at goal made in open play can also be considered dangerous if an opponent is endangered by it. The proponents of the idea that defenders are to blame if they are endangered when defending the goal offer as the crux of their argument only that there are a lot of people who think the same way they do (well they would say that wouldn’t they).
.
This nonsense goes back to an invention derived from the writing of a FIH Technical Delegate, John Gawley, in an umpire coaching paper in 2001 (just after Keely began umpiring). He wrote that a field player defending the goal arrogated to himself the duties of a goalkeeper (but without the privileges of a goalkeeper) and could be shot at as if he were a fully equipped goalkeeper – unless that endangers him. He also wrote, in the same document, that a shooter had to shoot at the goal and not at a defender positioned between the goal and himself. He began the document by stating that no player should ever raise the ball at another player be it at 15 cms of 50 cms and repeated that sentiment with conclusion that no player should EVER force another player to self-defence.
Nij and Keely opt for an amended version of one extreme – that a field player between a shooter and the goal can be shot at as if a fully equipped goalkeeper – the unless that endangers him dropped from the statement – not quite pure invention, but a horrible distortion of what Gawley so naively wrote. Gawley’s publication remains the only umpire coaching document ever written about the lifted ball. A copy of it can be found in this article: – http://wp.me/pKOEk-ki
from a free hit awarded to the attack within the 23 metres area, the ball must not be played into the circle until it has travelled at least 5 metres or has been touched by a player of either team other than the player taking the free hit.
If the player taking the free hit continues to play the ball (ie no other player has yet played it) : – that player may play the ball any number of times, but – the ball must travel at least 5 metres, before – that player plays the ball into the circle by hitting or pushing the ball again.
Alternatively :
– another player of either team who can legitimately play the ball must deflect, hit or push the ball before it enters the circle, or – after this player has touched the ball, it can be played into the circle by any other player including the player who took the free hit.
This Rule clause ought to be withdrawn on the grounds that it is unnecessary and the conditions disadvantage the side awarded a free-ball in the opponent’s 23m area – the penalty free in the opposition’s 23m area is so restricted it is no longer a free-ball. The facility to immediately hit the ball directly into the circle from any free-ball awarded in the opponent’s 23m area should be restored
There should instead be a prohibition on the raising of the ball into the opponent’s circlewith a hit or with a deflection of a hit – in any phase of play.
When a player hits the ball into the opponent’s circle, slight lifting of the ball, because of surface imperfections that cause it to ‘skip’, should be allowed for – the ball rising to no more than ball height – but the intention to hit the ball along the ground should be clear and a ball raised directly off the face of the stick-head should be considered a breach of Rule.
This Rule therefore needs amending
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.
Raising the ball with a hit, intentionally or not, should not be considered an offence
Except:
1) when it is judged to be dangerous play
( [a] if at a player within 5m and at above knee height [b] otherwise at the discretion of an umpire )
A rider that, unless shooting at the goal in the opponent’s circle, hitting the ball to rise above waist height (accidentally or not) will always be considered dangerous play and subject to penalty, is probably necessary, to avoid the return of chip or clip hitting over long distances.
2) when a player hits the ball into the opposing circle and
3) when a player hits the ball within the opposing circle but is not taking a shot at the goal.
The first exception reflects what is already common practice. (From the Umpire Manager’s Briefing ”forget lifted – think danger“)
Note for the Mandatory Experiment Direct Lift. Any free ball that is lifted directly with any permitted stroke (scoop, lob, flick etc.) should not be permitted to be raised to fall directly into the circle.
Terminology. With the introduction of the Direct Lift the term Free-Hit is no longer just a misnomer but a contradiction. It needs to be replaced with the term Free-Ball or Free-Pass .
Consider: – The Free-Hit may be raised with any stroke except a hit.
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.
Rules of Hockey. Deletions. The Offence of Forcing. The Gains Benefit exception clause.
There have been two significant deletions from the Rules of Hockey since 2006. The first, the ‘gains benefit’ exception clause from the Rule Guidance to Rule 9.11 (the ball/body contact rule). A note on the FIH website apparently initiated by the (then) Chair of the Umpires Committee, postponed the deletion until the expiry of the 2007-9 Rules of Hockey. see http://wp.me/pKOEk-xj Post January 2009, with the issue of a new rulebook sans ‘gains benefit’ , the deletion has to be accepted to have taken place, especially since it has not ‘re-surfaced’ in any subsequent issue of the Rules of Hockey.
The second, is the deletion of the offence of forcing (that is the forcing of an opponent into a technical breach of Rule) as an offence in itself, which took place in 2011.
‘Forcing’ is :- 1) The forcing of a body/ball contact, generally a foot/ball contact by playing the ball at an opponent from short range and/or at high velocity such that a contact could not be avoided by the player hit. The forcing of self-defence – legitimate evasive action – by such an action, defines a dangerously played ball.. 2) The forcing of an ‘obstruction’, again an action carried out by a player in possession of the ball, the ball holder generally pushing the ball to the far side of an opponent and then running into that opponent claiming that the opponent obstructed the direct path to the ball.
The illicit forcing of self-defence (dangerous play) and of an unintended ball/body contact have been either specifically prohibited actions or actions which should not result in penalty against the player hit with the ball, within the the Rules of Hockey beyond living memory. The gaining of an advantage or an unfair benefit has a more chequered history, having been deleted or omitted at least three times in the past twenty-five years.
These are from the 1990 rule book.
A player shall not:- 12.1 (e) hit wildly into an opponent or play or raise or kick (goalkeepers) the ball in such a way as to be dangerous in itself, or likely to lead to dangerous play or play the ball intentionally into an opponent’s foot, leg or body.
12.1. a) stop or deflect the ball on the ground or in the air with any part of the body TO HIS OR HIS TEAM’S ADVANTAGE.
The illicit forcing of obstruction has been penalised since the early 1990′s as a barging offence but was not much penalised before then.
Examples of forcing.
The Dutch player was awarded a free-ball.
This is a very unusual occurance – it might reasonablely be called an isolated incident and should have ‘earned’ at least a (long) yellow card, not a free ball.
.
A penalty corner was awarded against the team of the player hit with the ball.
The penalising of a forced ball/foot/leg contact is so common and ‘accepted’ ‘expected’, that not penalising such a contact would be an unusual and isolated incident.
The deletion of both ‘gains benefit’ and ‘forcing’ are obviously grave errors of judgement on the part of first the FIH HRB and then the (renamed) FIH Rules Committee. Both of these areas needed further clarification and amendment; complete deletion should not have been contemplated. The deletions have caused great confusion and not a little mischief. The text below is from a web-site that at one time ran a forum for hockey players and umpires. The confusion and the mischief are evident. Only one post has been omitted, the poster himself declaring it ‘off topic’.
The posts have been assembled by ‘copy and paste’, only one alteration to the wording has been made, a name, where a quote was incorrectly ascribed by the poster.
The topic of the thread was “ What you look out for and what you do about attackers intentionally pushing the ball onto a defenders foot in the D?”
Some of the contributors to it didn’t seem to be aware of the topic being discussed. In the posts that follow there is clearly little understanding of the difference between – allowing play to continue after an offence has been committed because the side offended against can play on with advantage (which an umpire is obliged to do) – and not allowing play to continue, (penalising) because an unfair advantage has been obtained due to an unintentional breach of Rule 9.11 – or awareness of the fact, that due to the deletion of the gains benefit exception clause, applying a penalty against a player hit with the ball, when the contact is forced i.e. not made voluntarily, is no longer a possibility within the Rules in any circumstances.
The Members of the FIH Rules Committee and the FIH Umpiring ought to read this ‘discussion’ thread. It is an opportunity for salutatory lessons to be learned about drafting clear Rule and Rule Guidance and letting ‘interpretation’ out of control and into the ‘hands’ of individuals who are ……………. let the reader decide.
****
The Posts.
Dan Quinton Unfortunately Justin’s thread on ‘foot in the D not always being a PC’ is no longer open to replies – hence a new thread. 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. kaiwawao The 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.
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 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.
Hacker Not 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). 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. Gold, I probably do not come into the category of what Dan Quinton means by “more experienced umpire” but I will still offer a view If the ball is played (say by the attacker) intentionally onto the (defender’s) foot then the attacker has not been disadvantaged (he has chosen to play it there) and consequently no foul has occurred i.e. “play on”. Of course, it is often difficult to determine intention so I think most umpires would apply this interpretation only (if at all) when they are convinced that this was the attacker’s intention (possibly judging this by the actions of the attacker after he has played the hall and / or whether it could have been intended as a pass to another attacker). Another line of argument in favour of “play on” is that in order for an offence to occur the defender has to have “voluntarily” played the ball with his feet (or positioned himself with the intention of doing so). The word “voluntarily” is not the same as “intentionally” but seems capable of various interpretations; some argue that any player attempting to tackle a player with the ball is doing so voluntarily and is therefore likely to be penalized if their the ball makes contact with their feet; I find it difficult to agree with that construction and think that it should be interpreted so that a player who could not reasonably avoid being hit by the ball, should not be penalized. It is still subjective as to whether a player could have avoided being hit by the ball but when the ball is played at close range directly onto a stationary defender’s foot (especially at an unexpected angle) then I think that call can be made – and should be if it is clearly intentional. nerd_is_the_word I think the easiest way to blow the foot rule these days is to look at one simple thing: what would have happened if the foot wasn’t there. As kaiwawao has said, if the ball was goign to go off the backline, or would otherwise have benefited the defence more than the attack then play on. otherwise PC. One of the things that I and many umpires now use is to yell in a big loud voice something like, “keep playing” or similar and encourage the attack to continue in order to avoid having to blow a PC for something like this. johnreiss as has been said, there’s now no such thing as a manufactured foul. Either the defender’s foot gained him an advantage or it didn’t. If it did (eg stopped the ball going to another attacker, its a pc. If it merely brushed his foot with no benefit (no attacker within playing distance)= no offence = play on.
kaiwawao The rule was changed in the rule book effective from 1st January. 2011
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. The rulebook for the previous period had the rule worded as:
9. I5 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 cynical view would be that it was deleted as it was not blown often. Comments that were on FHF previously (might have been deleted now the board software was changed) suggested especially at the highest levels umpires could not judge the intent of the attacker so could not penalise them. It’s a shame it was deleted as it’s clear that the manufactured foul cannot be penalised using any other part of the rulebook.
Gold nerd_is_the_word said: I think the easiest way to blow the foot rule these days Is to took at one simple thing: what would have happened If the foot wasn’t there.
I agree with this simple approach, in so far as it goes. However, it doesn’t specifically deal with the situation where the ball is played intentionally onto the defender’s foot (assuming a material contact) – unless you are also prepared to say (in appropriate circumstances) that the defender has not gained an advantage because the attacker has given away the possession and control that he previously had. I would be grateful for any views on whether such an approach is generally adopted – and, if not, the reason(s) for not doing so.
nerd_is_the_word Gold, that’s exactly what I am looking at. If its played into the defenders feet, was there an attacker behind the defender who would have received the pass? would the attacker have had enough room to regather the ball?or would the ball simply have rolled off the back line for a 16? as far as the attacker gaining material advantage, its not about the attacker losing control, its about whether the defender has made their life easier by stopping the ball illegally. Bondy A lot of philosophical debate could be had on this topic, and as we know there’ll be some very strongly held opinions on both sides. I want to add one practical point though, from my experience of game management at a high level. If a fullback is expecting a PC to be given, the odds are that a PC is going to be the “right” decision for the game – and not giving one, regardless of how you view the technicalities of the rules, is just going to needlessly annoy one team, and make the rest of the game harder for you.
chrisberry2k I’ve found that normally when you do give a LC instead of a PC once the defender’s asked “that hit a foot isn’t it a short” and you reply “where was the advantage?” – after a bit of head scratching you’ll gt a lot of agreement. You just need to make sure that you’re in the right position to be able to make that call. Easy if it’s played in to a foot with reasonable force then goes off the back. If it stays in play it gets far more hazy both in terms of the decision and potential agreement from the offence! pogoref I’m still trying to convince players and some fellow umpires that a LC is the correct decision where no advantage has been gained. As I posted on a thread some time ago, a more senior umpire stopped the game in order to speak to me and when I stuck to my decision he described it as a “brave decision”. Nij
Kaiwawao said 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.
Its a shame It was deleted as it’s dear that the manufactured foul cannot be penalised using any other part of the rulebook.
That’s not what the first sentence is supposed to mean. There is no intent to penalise manufacturing a foul any more, which is what you take it to imply – it merely states that we are not to penalise the manufacturing of a foul as a foul itself, and whatever would have previously been treated under the manufactured foul rule, is now dealt with by any other rule that applies. Or, if no other rule applies, then we are to play on. So what would have previously been a deliberately played into the foot, is now just a foot. We don’t use the ‘manufactured foul’ rule – we use the ‘no playing ball with your foot or body’ rule. If an attempt to manufacture a foul is something likely to create dangerous play, then rules against danger are the obvious choice and readily available; if the manufactured foul does not create a disadvantage to the team who manufactured it, then we simply play on as per advantage rules.
pogoref While I apply the same interpretation as others, I do not consider putting the ball onto an opponent’s foot as being skillful. I would suggest that on most occasions danger will not be an issue but disadvantage will be because the ball is likely to stop or the defender gain possession. To me, this deliberate act is against the spirit of the rules and is a form of cheating. It is particularly galling when having to reward this action with a PC. However, all players expect the current interpretation so I will continue like everyone else.
kaiwawao
Nij said: That’s not what the first sentence is supposed to mean. There is no intent to penalise manufacturing a foul any more, which is what you take it to imply – it merely states that we are not to penalise the manufacturing of a foul as a foul itself, and whatever would have previously been treated under the manufactured foul rule, is now dealt with by any other rule that applies. Or, if no other rule applies, then we are to play on. So what would have previously been a deliberately played into the foot, is now just a foot. We don’t use the ‘manufactured foul’ rule – we use the ‘no playing ball with your foot or body’ rule. If an attempt to manufacture a foul is something likely to create dangerous play, then rules against danger are the obvious choice and readily available; if the manufactured foul does not create a disadvantage to the team who manufactured it, then we simply play on as per advantage rule.
I’d be interested to know who at the FIH you have spoken to who can confirm that Nij as I’m assuming you are not just stating your opinion in such as way that it sounds like official guidance.
If the rules were actually interpreted like that, it would at least encourage skilful play and probably more attacking, more attractive hockey as attackers would soon realise they have to use their ability to shoot or use intelligent passing especially when used with the current rule on body contact which advises not to penalise unless the defender used their body to play the ball or put their body in the way to stop the ball.
Unfortunately all that has happened with this rule change was to legitimise the use of ball to foot as a tactic for gaining a PC in the D even when there is no advantage or disadvantage from the contact.
Diligent kaiwawao said: all that has happened with this rule change was to legitimise the use of ball to foot as a tactic for gaining a PC in the D even when there is no advantage or disadvantage from the contact.
Correct, except that many umpires will play the advantage (no disadvantage). And you’re correct that a lot of people saw the change as ‘unfortunate’ . But it’s 2013, and those are the 2013 Rules.
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. Keely likes this
Redumpire Can I ask a question about the reverse situation? If a defender has the ball in a tight spot in the circle and deliberately plays the ball onto an attacker’s foot in an attempt to win a free hit and so get out of the tight spot, what do we think should be blown? I’m pretty sure I’d blow for a FHD 99% of the time….
Bondy, Nij, keely like this
Porter There is a school of thought which says that if a forward is clever and skilful enough to put the ball on a defender’s foot, then the defender should be clever and skilful enough to be able to defend his own feet and prevent this happening. Does this also apply the other way around, as indicated in Red’s post above?
kaiwawao
Nij said: If the FIH wanted players who manufacture offences to be penalised, they would not have removed the single specific rule that targets the manufacturing of offences. It’s not a huge leap of logic to figure that, since they have actively taken out any reference to penalising manufacturing offences and have told us to deal with such situations under other rules, then we should a) stop looking to penalise the manufacturing of offences purely on that basis, and b) look at what other rules apply to the situation in its absence. In this case, it is particularly those on the ball hitting feet and, as with just about everything in modern hockey, the advantage concept.
So basically in other words, no, you don’t have any official guidance that your view on what this sentence means is what the FIH intended, you’ve just assumed your view is correct.
The note says:
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.
By the same sort of circular logic you employed, I could quite easily point out that as the FIH didn’t make the note ‘The Rule which used to say that “players must not force an opponent into offending unintentionally” is deleted because we no longer consider this to be an offence’ then I must be right.
I’m not getting into a debate on semantics, if you can get an official note from an FIH source to confirm this I will happily accept that, currently you are just writing several paragraphs of text to gloss over the fact you are stating your opinion.
Porter- if a defender is caught out by an attacker’s speed and is running alongside them in the D with the attacker closer to the backline/goal with obvious passing or shooting options available and the attacker suddenly spins and plays the ball onto the defender’s foot, is that something you feel the defender could reasonably have expected and been prepared to defend their feet against?
Moderator’s note: FHF regulars will spot a good few straw men here – challenges to write something that can be swatted down as ‘even more ridiculous than what you wrote before’. Please take care when replying: it is more useful to readers to discuss good current practice than what might have been. Keely kaiwawao said: if you can get an official note from an FIH source to confirm this I will happily accept that I’m not sure what would qualify as official enough, given that “notes” in the form of forum posts written by experienced FIH umpires repeating briefings from experienced FIH UMs have not been accepted in the past. On this topic, that terribly unofficial note on how we are apply the lack of a manufactured rule concept would read pretty much exactly like this:
I’m not sure what would qualify as official enough, given that “notes” in the form of forum posts written by experienced FIH umpires repeating briefings from experienced FIH UMs have not been accepted in the past. On this topic, that terribly unofficial note on how we are apply the lack of a manufactured rule concept would read pretty much exactly like this:
Very minor edit by official FHF moderator: sorry Keely, had to do it.
Diligent kaiwawao said: Porter – if a defender is caught out by an attacker’s speed and is running alongside them in the D with the attacker closer to the backline/goal with obvious passing or shooting options available and the attacker suddenly spins and plays the ball onto the defender’s foot, is that something you feel the defender could reasonably have expected and been prepared to defend their feet against?
My answer would be: not the defender, nor the umpire, would have expected that. But what happens next? - The moving defender kicks the ball towards goal, the way the attacker was going. No disadvantage, play on, except the attacker has to turn again to chase it. - The ball rebounds away from the attacker. PC for feet. At most hockey, an open attack with goal options becomes a PC, with considerably less chance of scoring. - The ball misses the defender’s foot. The attacker has lost possession. So whatever happens, the attacker’s team and bench are wondering why that ‘find a foot’ ever seemed a good idea. Will anyone try to ‘manufacture’ that particular offence again? Not likely. The ‘other rules’ have done their job. jayjay kaiwawao said: I’m not getting into a debate on semantics, if you can get an official note from an FIH source to confirm this I will happily accept that, currently you are just writing several paragraphs of text to gloss over the fact you are stating your opinion.
are you saying those of us on here who have regular contact with FIH UMs should ask them to please write it down for us after the briefing? because it is indeed as @Nij says: we’re to understand that sentence in the beginning of the rulebook to mean that manufacturing a foul is no longer a foul itself, but that many of the actions formerly penalised in reference to that rule, can now either be penalised under others (most commonly, i think, danger), or should be treated as “play on” situations, in accordance with the advantage rule. this is the common understanding FIH umpires share, and its being reinforced by what our UMs tell us.
now you might notice that this is not specifically stated in the UM briefing available online, and i think there’s a very simple reason why: the rulebook really explains it all. manufacturing a foul is no longer a foul. so we deal with every situation by applying the remaining rules. but even while we had the manufactured foul rule, you could easily have blown a player running into another player to claim obstruction as dangerous play rather than a manufactured foul. one option has been removed, the other remains.
imho, few umpires in my country had the sense (or maybe courage?) to actually apply the manufactured foul rule. a foot in the D was an automatic PC. since the deletion of the rule the FIH has placed greater focus on educating umpires to re-think such situations under the advantage rule and guidance, and i, for once, think this is much more effective in bringing about a genuine change. where before you had to make three decisions when the ball hit the foot (did it hit the foot? did it matter? was it manufactured foul?), you now only have two. i believe this brings higher consistency and makes it easier to understand for umpires who are aspiring to reach a high(er) standard of umpiring.
deegum Nij said: if the manufactured foul does not create a disadvantage to the team who manufactured it, then we simply play on as per advantage rules.
I cannot understand how in many instances, a “Manufactured foul” can result in a penalty against a defender. Porter’s example :”the attacker suddenly spins and plays the ball onto the defender’s foot,” I take it as describing a manufactured foul . ( Part of) Diligent’s reply: – The ball rebounds away from the attacker. PC for feet. I cannot understand how anyone could penalise the defender- it being implicit in the description that he would have zero chance of avoiding ball/ body contact Hence any penalising of the defender would be in breach of:
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.
Under this rule, advantaging or disadvantaging the opponent striking the ball is irrelevant. NO matter how great any advantage / disadvantage is.
nerd_is_the_word Gees this goes around in circles doesn’t it?
So deegum what your saying is that in that case the defender has not chosen to open their feet up to the ball being played?
Because that is the exact decision that every defender makes in that situation, to either reach for the ball and open up their feet, or to let the attacker shoot and make sure they don’t give away a corner.
And yes Deegum you are correct, it does describe a manufactured foul, a rule that no longer exists, and as has been said numerous times, is no longer penalised unless it breaks other rules.
Gold I have some sympathy with Deegum’s view of how Rule 9.11 should be interpreted. Indeed, based only on the words used, I find it difficult to see any other meaning. However, for whatever reason, this is not the interpretation arrived at by the vast majority (>99%?) of players and umpires and, until such time as there is further clarification in the rules or official guidance, it is necessary to use the criterion of whether the opponent’s team has been disadvantaged.
I like the way that Nij has encapsulated the issue: ”If an attempt to manufacture a foul is something likely to create dangerous play, then rules against danger are the obvious choice and readily available; if the manufactured foul does not create a disadvantage to the team who manufactured it, then we simply play on as per advantage rules”. However, in the context of manufactured “feet” (or at least some instances), I do wonder whether we shouldn’t be more ready to say that the attackers have not been disadvantaged because their player has given away possession / control rather than look at how the ball falls for the defender. Admittedly, the attacker is likely to get the benefit of any doubt but if the umpire is convinced that the play onto feet was not intended to be a “legitimate” attempt to progress an attack, shouldn’t umpires be prepared to adopt such an interpretation (even if the ball is subsequently falls under the control of the defender)?
redumpire At the risk of sounding peevish, does no one who supports strict adherence to the exact wording of the rules wish to answer this point? redumpire: said: Can I ask a question about the reverse situation? If a defender has the ball in a tight spot in the circle and deliberately plays the ball onto an attacker’s foot in an attempt to win a free hit and so get out of the tight spot, what do we think should be blown? I’m pretty sure I’d blow for a FHD 99% of the time….
If we’d blow a FHD 99% of the time in that situation (which I’m pretty sure we would), why wouldn’t we blow for a PC 99% of the time if the roles are reversed?
Jersey Jerry I do, Red. Factoring in the YHTBT, if the ball hits a defenders foot as a result of an attacker passing/dribbling/shooting its a FHA/PC. Thinking, as already stated, if the ball hadn’t hit the defenders foot, what would have happened? Only in the instances of a completely misplaced pass/shot, which hits a defenders foot some distance away and with no other attackers around, is it ‘play on.’ Kilmory Wishful thinking there Gold.
If the manufactured rule was removed because umpires couldn’t/wouldn’t enforce it then why should we think they will adopt your approach?
I only have the rules available to me, not high level briefings, but my personal opinion is the FIH bought in a rule that was not used by the majority of umpires and rather than just back down gracefully the FIH put in a meaningless explanation as to why it was removed.
It is obvious that the situation we are discussing with the “get something” foot in the D is NOT covered by the current rules, except that the defender will be penalised for playing the ball illegally. The fact that they did so unintentionally (and therefore not an offence) will happily be overlooked by umpires until that guidance is also removed.
And to answer Red’s post – Why would it not be play on? I’m all for equality. Cookie kaiwawao and deegum- what I don’t understand is why you think removal of the forced foul matters in the context of the ball hits foot debate. If you interpret 9.11 in strict terms with its guidance – ie the player only commits an offence if he voluntarily uses his foot – that isn’t an offence which can be manufactured. Its counter intuitive – I can’t force someone to do something voluntarily.
So the removal of the forced foul rule should have no impact on the consequence of how you umpire feet surely? Either you think the contact falls into the category of offence by the defender – in which case penalise if he gains an advantage – or you don’t in which case play on. Different people interpret the rule differently as to what constitutes voluntarily – but that is part of life – we all interpret events differently.
Gold
Kilmory said: Wishful thinking there Gold.
Agreed, Kilmory kaiwawao I feel most people here are ignoring my point in favour of what they imagine I wrote.
I am not disputing that the rule was changed nor do I blow manufactured fouls. The point I was making was this:
Nij made a statement that the rule was changed and the note in the rule book means that the FIH no longer want the forced foul rule in the game. My counter is that the note on the rule change does not make that point – it does not say that “some” or “many” offences that used to be penalised can be done under the current rules, it says:
“The rule… is deleted because any action of this sort can be dealt with under other Rules.
Clearly the action of playing the ball into the foot of an opponent who is not in breach of 9.11 cannot be penalised under any other Rules.
if you can get an official note from the Chair of FIH RC (or someone with the authority to speak on their behalf) to confirm that the forcing of a ball/body contact is not an offence I will happily accept that. I will not accept 2nd hand knowledge of unwritten tournament specific briefings passed on via a forum
Cookie
- it wouldn’t matter if that was how the rules were interpreted. Foot in the D = PC even when no advantage is gained is so ingrained that “gains benefit” should just be put back in the rules to make them logical and tie in with player expectations. Deleting it was a mistake and easy to rectify via changing the rule back or putting a clear reference on P1 of the book saying “read the umpire briefing for clarification on any query – it’s at www. whatever”
Gold Kaiawao, I agree with your analysis / comments about the 2011 rule changes and explanations. I consider the explanation to be lame but it seems that there was clear intention to change so that, by itself, a manufacturing of an offence would not be penalized. Some may regret this as it leaves little scope for the “brave” umpire to penalize such action but that seems to be the current position.
Diligent kaiwawao said: If you can get an official note from the Chair of FIH RC… I will happily accept that. I will not accept 2nd hand knowledge… passed on via a forum
What’s the chance of accepting an official note passed on via a forum? Your best route to happiness would seem to be 1:1, direct from the Chair of FIH RC.
jayjay kaiwawao said: “The rule… is deleted because any action of this sort can be dealt with under other Rules. Clearly the action of playing the ball into the foot of an opponent who is not in breach of 9.11 cannot be penalised under any other Rules.
aye, there’s the rub.
you have to get it out of your head that “dealt with” can be equalised with “penalised”. ANY action formerly penalised under the forced foul rule can now we dealt with by using other rules. sometimes that means penalising for an offence such as dangerous play, sometimes it means deciding there is no foul. that is also dealing with it under the rules, seeing as its the rules that tell us to play on.
i’m sorry if i have to disappoint you by saying that i wasn’t giving you unwritten tournament specific briefings As I told you, this isn’t even part of the briefing, and it most certainly is not tournament specific. i think you will be hard pressed to find an FIH umpire who has any doubts about this or is confused by the wording or sees any of the ambiguity some on these forms like to see.
I only have the rules available to me, not high level briefings Kilmory to be honest, you have the same info available as I do. the FIH UM briefing is available online. you might have less access to FIH UMs and umpires, but then again, there are some people on here who are FIH umpires and are in regular contact with FIH UMs and are happy to answer questions.
<rant> personally, i think its great that they share their experiences and are patient enough (well, mostly) to answer questions, even again and again, and i think it’s a right shame some people on here first refuse to hear what they have to say and then complain the FIH is withholding information or is not being clear enough about their intentions. that’s not a stab at anyone in particular, just me giving voice to my general frustration at some of these debates. yes, i think discussion and arguments are extremely beneficial and can be a great way of learning new things and challenging established views, but at some point it stops being constructive. and i think this discussion has long reached that point. and many others, who get dragged out of oblivion every so often to get rehashed once more. and why do we keep discussing? i think some, like me, are a little naive and hope that we might still persuade someone to our point of view. unfortunately, i’m more and more finding that some people’s opinions can’t be changed, no matter by how many valid arguments that can’t be disputed by anything else than “well, you’re wrong”. I think it’s a little sad that some people refuse to learn from what FIH umpires on here have to say about certain interpretations, but rather go round in circles complaining about the ambiguity or lack of clarity of something in the rule book, which really only is ambiguous or unclear to a minority of people involved (whether umpires, players or other people interested in the rules). however, i think that’s their loss. ultimately it might become a loss for this forum, if experienced umpires start disappearing out of frustration, and i understand that has happened in the past. sadly it will be most detrimental to the young or less experienced umpires who seek guidance from this forum. maybe thats the reason why some haven’t given up yet, who knows. </rant>
redumpire, alex.miles and keely like this.
alex.miles
Cheer up, jayjay I was stuck umpiring low level hockey before finding this forum. Keely was the UM at a tournament that was short for umpires, and so I contacted her through this forum. She said “As long as you’re honest with your questions and hear the answers, you’ll be a welcome addition to the team.” And so I umpired my first good tournament. I met two FIH umpires and an English Premier League umpire who could very well be FIH (all three have posted on this forum).
Now I’m a regular in my province’s top matches and have umpired the Bronze match at our Senior Men’s National Championships. I can honestly say that I would not be here today without this forum and the people on it like Keely. Some good does come out of this forum!
Diligent jayjay said: <rant>… some people on here …</rant>
Moderator’s note: The key ‘some people’ who trouble you were contacted by PM yesterday. It was made clear that FHF does not want the style of ‘debate’ that killed off HockeyWeb and Talking Hockey. Just so that they know that you know they’ve been warned.
jayjay alex.miles said: Cheer up jayjay
oh, i’m generally a very cheerful person. i was just expressing that my considerable patience is starting to wear down a bit. i know that there’s many people on here who generally want to learn, but those who don’t sometimes really do make it a bit frustrating. now, i love playing devil’s advocate as much as the next person, but sometimes it does get a bit much. sorry if i cam off a bit harsh.
deegum redumpire said: Can I ask a question about the reverse situation? If a defender has the ball in a tight spot in the circle and deliberately plays the ball onto an attacker’s foot in an attempt to win a free hit and so get out of the tight spot, what do we think should be blown? I’m pretty sure I’d blow for a FHD 99% of the time….
redumpire said: At the risk of sounding peevish, does no one who supports strict adherence to the exact wording of the rules wish to answer this point? I’m pretty sure you’d be incorrect a lot of the time.- Assuming it was the usual ” from 1/2 m” or so, or pushed practically all the way on to the foot. You can’t rule that UNAVOIDABLE contact is voluntary, Therefore there is no offence by (in this case) the attacker. Play on.. Or you could penalise the defence under:-
9.3 Players must not touch, handle or interfere with other players or their sticks or clothing.
An instance where the old “manufactured foul” would be useful, and not debatable, rather than using ” dealt with under other rules”
Refer jay’s post #38 ANY action formerly penalised under the forced foul rule can now we dealt with by using other rules.
I agree entirely. Please note, folks. If it was an offence under the “forced foul” rule it still is. -subject to any other rule changes since the deletion of the specific rule.
Diligent redumpire said: … does no one who supports strict adherence to the exact wording of the rules wish to answer this point? Deegum said: Please note, folks. If it was an offence under the “forced foul” rule it still is - subject to any other rule changes since the deletion of the specific rule.
Although I don’t support strict (blind) adherence to rules, preferring to go with fair play and consistency with the spirit of the rule, I will try to answer your point… again. Try thinking about it this way: re-read the 2011 guidance, not as “it still is under other Rules”, but “can be dealt with under other Rules”. That will allow you to join the many other umpires worldwide in allowing that, in a few situations, the outcome without a ‘forced offence’ rule is different from the outcome with a ‘forced offence’ rule. Just before that, at the bottom of page 4, the 2011 book explains that the changes “seek to simplify the game without altering its fundamental characteristics”. Removing the ‘forced offence’ freed the umpire to simply judge ‘foot’ or ‘danger’, without delving into the complexity of a player’s motives or options, or into the complexity of the notes to each rule. Most younger players didn’t know there was a forced foul rule anyway, only becoming aware when an umpire used it for a ‘Gotcha!’. The game has carried on as if the ‘forced offence’ never existed. The fundamental characteristics have not altered. The rule change found what was sought.
Deegum
and I’ll have to try to explain it , Again!
Diligent said in a few situations, the outcome without a ‘forced offence’ rule is different from the outcome with a ‘forced offence’ rule. But apparently, the outcome is different in almost all situations where the ” forced foul” rule would have applied -IMO
Unfortunately, Diligent, you are still left with:
delving into the complexity of a player’s motives or options
as you have to, for instance, decide if a player ” voluntarily” or otherwise, permitted ball/body contact
Without delving
into the complexity of the notes to each rule
I would have thought the intention of the notes in general were to, and generally do, make the rule(s) clearer, not more complex.
re-read the 2011 guidance, not as “it still is under other Rules”,
I suggest that folk should ” re-read the Introduction to the 2011 rules ,” Rule changes” section as written”, since it is likely the rules board meant what they said.
any action of this sort (ed: “forcing”) can be dealt with under other Rules.
Why should the note say that a non offence can be ” dealt with” under other rules? Perhaps because it is an offence?
BTW, I am trying very very hard to be polite and watching my phraseology. So, as far as I know I am committing / giving no offence in this post.
Kilmory deegum said: BTW, I am trying very very hard to be polite and watching my phraseology. So, as far as I know I am committing / giving no offence in this post.
Agreed, but you are trying to flog a dead horse!
Please leave it. We all recognise the point you are trying to make, the majority will never agree with you though. There is absolutely no point repeating the same thing over and over again in the hope that something will change. If you always do what you always did, you’ll always get what you always got. And no – that is not an invitation to change the words slightly but make the same point.
Dan Quinton said: Unfortunately Justin’s thread on ‘foot in the D not always being a PC’ is no longer open to replies – hence a new thread.
And now this one is going the same way. I’ll be very disappointed if another thread is opened to discuss this same topic.
****************
Makes one wonder why the FIH Rules Committee bother to compose Rules and publish them in a rule book, doesn’t it ?
There was of course no proposal during this ‘web debate’ to discuss restoring or substituting an amended version of either the offence of forcing or the gains benefit exception clause, as the making of suggestions concerning changes to Rule or Rule Guidance is forbidden on this website – as is any discussion of the way the Rules of Hockey have been written previously.
A question asked on a hockey related website. …an attacker aims to cross the ball into the circle and it either jams off a defenders stick attempting to make a tackle or raises off another player (defender) further away and the result is the ball looping up into a crowded circle. ……………………… Free Hit or Penalty corner?
An opinion and advice given by a senior umpire. An aerial is a pass. An inadvertent deflection is not. Please don’t apply the aerial rules to every instance of a ball in the air because that is absolutely not the intended use of the rule.
The Rule.
9.10 Players must not approach within 5 metres of an opponent receiving a falling raised ball until it has been received, controlled and is on the ground.
The initial receiver has a right to the ball. If it is not clear which player is the initial receiver, the player of the team which raised the ball must allow the opponent to receive it.
I disagree with the advice given. This is a Rule designed to prevent dangerous play when the ball is in the air and falling, whether or not the ball has been passed from one player to another, or is intended as a pass, is irrelevant.
It’s not a well written Rule because every ball which is raised to any height will fall and there is no indication of the height the ball must reach before the rule comes into force, but general practice seems to be that the Rule applies to a ball falling from above shoulder height, commonly from well above head height.
There is no indication of horizontal distance travelled either or of the method of propulsion, so the ball could be scooped 50m or more or could go almost straight up and down again as a result of a deflection – there is no mention of intent. It is not, on the other hand, so badly written that the above advice could be inferred as true from what is given, there is no ambiguity other than the relevant height.
There is no indication within the Rule that it refers to a ball deliberately passed with a scoop or lob or flick, what are commonly referred to as aerial balls when the ball is raised over distance – and usually considerably above shoulder height. The term ‘aerial’ does not appear in the Rules of Hockey at all.
This same umpire was advising another questioner, a few months ago, “The aerial Rules do not apply to a shot on goal“. I can’t see any grounds for that deduction either. It is unwise, even pernicious, for a senior umpire to offer personal opinion of dubious truth, which might be taken as official FIH Rule Guidance, when it is no such thing: in fact the advice given is the opposite of what a reasonable person would deduce from the wording of the Rule.
I deduce from the Rule wording.
When there is a deflection of the ball up off a defender’s stick and it loops into a crowded circle from outside the circle, play must be stopped if the ball is going to fall among players who might contest for it, but I can’t see an offence there. There are two incidents of poor skill; the attacker played the ball too close to the defender, so the defender got a stick on it but failed to stop the ball. Neither is an offence, a bully seems correct.
If a deflected ball is falling to a player of either team in space inside the circle and there is no danger directly from the flight of from the deflection, then the only thing that might give rise to penalty is an encroachment infraction. Depending on which side is doing the encroaching, a free ball or a penalty stroke should be awarded (with a card in both cases).
Timing of the whistle is very important. The umpire needs to wait to see if danger is likely to develop – if not the whistle is not necessary the game can continue – if yes, then the potential danger must not be allowed to actually occur.
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. Dangerous play shooting at the goal.
In general play the Rules concerning the dangerous playing of the ball are divided between Rule 9.8 and Rule 9.9.
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.
Greater leeway is given when raising the ball during a penalty corner. The ball may be lifted to knee height with the first hit shot (and therefore presumably with a first flicked shot). It is not clear if subsequent shots, hit or flicked, may be raised (just under) knee height as the first shot may be. Umpires are advised in the Umpire Briefing document that a ball raised to “half-shin height” is not dangerous. Half-shin height is approximately 25cms., so presumably a ball raised at another player which is above 25cms may be considered dangerous play. There is no mention of ball velocity in any of these Rules.
13 Procedures for taking penalties. Taking a 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.
In the incident shown in the video clip the ball is flicked high (near head height) and powerfully at a defender who is within 5m of the attacker who propelled the ball. The defender did not move into the path of the ball, on the contrary, he tried to avoid being hit. All the criteria for determining that the ball was played in a dangerous way were met, including both objective criteria: so why did the umpire award a goal and not a free ball to the defending team when the ball deflected off the defender into the net?
The ‘justifications’ frequently offered for such decisions are 1) that there were no protests from the players, so the umpire was doing as the players expected, and 2) the umpire was re-appointed to officiate at subsequent matches, so (he or she) was doing as selectors and umpire managers and coaches expected.
I don’t believe there would have been a ‘storm of protest’ if the umpire had awarded a free ball to the defending team, that too would have been accepted (or ‘sold’ as some umpires put it). The apparent acceptance, by selectors and umpire coaches, of the failure of the umpire to follow the Rules of Hockey, is however baffling. We seldom get to know if the umpire was ‘spoken to’ or ‘marked down’ due to the incorrectness of this kind of decision, and of course ‘disciplinary action’ of this sort, even if it occurs, does not alter the decision or prevent other umpires following the example set by it. In fact it may be asserted by some that because the “goal” decision was made by an experienced National Premier League Umpire, appointed in this instance to the Final of the National League, the decision must have been correct (the official involved also happened to be an FIH Umpire). That the decision was so obviously in conflict with the published Rules of Hockey (and all other relevant documents produced by the FIH) seems not to matter.
The most worrying aspect though must be the risk to players; if this sort of reckless endangerment is not discouraged. Those shooting at the goal will continue to do so without regard for the safety of others, as the attacker in the above clip did. The defender in this instance may be said to have been lucky he was hit near his collar-bone; he had instinctively averted his face and could just as easily have been hit on the head, possibly just in front of his ear, with far more serious consequences than soreness and a bruise. This is what is called ‘an accident waiting to happen’: actually it is negligence, the umpire failing in his duty to do what a reasonable person would in the circumstances do.
What is causing the ignoring of obviously (that is obviously given the Rule criteria) dangerous play? I believe that to be what is seen as the unreasonableness of (absence of ‘common sense’ in) the objective criteria, especially when applied to players at the the higher levels of the game. It is unreasonable to state, once players have reached a quite modest degree of competence, that a ball raised above 25cms from almost 5m is certainly dangerous play, but that is what a literal reading of Rule Guidance (combined with the UMB) gives us in general play.
Once the decision is made (prior to any game )to ignore the given objective criteria (as unreasonable), there is no justification in Rule to search for or apply any other objective criteria, the umpire therefore uses subjective judgement alone. As umpires have in the past (but not currently) been warned in Umpire Briefings, that evasive action may be ‘a con’ by defenders, to make umpires believe that a ball is dangerously played, when in fact the ball has not actually endangered a defender and evasive action is not really ‘legitimate’ (genuine/necessary), it was an easy step to regard all evasive action as suspect or even faked, and some umpires still regard any evasive action in this way (pointing to level of skill), even if this may be unreasonable given the height and velocity at which the ball is traveling.
Add to that the similar opinion that a player who is hit may have (or definitely did) intend to be hit: positioning in front of the goal therefore being seen as ‘illegitimate’, a tenuous reference to a 2001 umpire coaching paper (now withdrawn) which declared “the defender (in front of the goal) arrogates to himself the position and duties of a goalkeeper……the ball may be shot at him as if he were a fully equipped goalkeeper” which was never quite cancelled out by the conflicting “an attacker must shoot at the goal not at a defender positioned between the attacker and the goal” from the same document. It is impossible to defend the goal without positioning between the shooting attacker and the goal and if such positioning is deemed to be ‘suspect’ or even illegitimate (not legal), the whole structure of the judgement of a dangerously played ball falls apart, because no ball can in those circumstances be considered dangerously played – which is where we seem to be at present with an ‘on target’ shot at the goal. It appears that only if the ball is going wide of the goal (UMB) will it be considered dangerous – which is ridiculous.
I believe ‘knee height’ needs to be used as a criteria for ‘dangerous’ in general play, but only for a ball raised from within 3m, and elbow height ought should be used for balls propelled from any distance beyond 3m.(and up to 20m given that the ball may be drag-flicked into the circle in the hope of a deflected ‘own goal). I think these would be more reasonable heights and distances.
‘Legitimate evasive action’ needs to be withdrawn as a criteria, it has never made sense to determine if the actions of the player propelling the ball are dangerous dependent on the reaction (or lack of reaction) to the propelled ball by an opponent. It makes more sense to consider ball velocity and the propensity of a ball propelled at high velocity to cause injury, than to consider if evasion was legitimate or not (provided it could be attempted at all).
Field Hockey. Evasive Action, Defining a dangerously played ball
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 Guidance does not say A ball is considered dangerous only when it causes legitimate evasive action by players. Causing legitimate evasive action by an opponent is dangerous play, but not the only dangerous play possible when propelling the ball. The Guidance to Rule 9.9. declares A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous. But again,that does not state that a flick or a scoop towards an opponent may be dangerous to that opponent only when the opponent is within 5m of the ball at the time it was propelled; 5m is not a maximum, beyond which dangerous playing of the ball at an opponent is not a possibility.
An umpire is given a great deal of latitude in the Rules of Hockey to make subjective judgement about a dangerously played ball, but instructed in the Rule Guidance that a dangerous play offence has certainly occurred when legitimate evasion is caused (forced) and/or the ball is raised (in any way with a flick or scoop – no height is given) at an opponent who is within 5m.
(The UMB – which is not the Rules of Hockey but advice, declares that a ball raised to half shin-pad height is not dangerous – but does not indicate a distance from an opponent).
In this incident (below) the Spanish player raises the ball into a closing opponent and in so doing committed an offence. The New Zealand player, who was blameless, was penalised for being hit with the ball. (All the Spanish players appealled, as if being hit with the ball was an offence).
The Penalty Corner Rule introduces above knee height and within 5m as a dangerous play criteria and this has crept into ‘common practice’ in application of the Rule on all raising of the ball into an opponent, to the extent that a player hit with the ball below knee height, even from within 5m, is usually penalised – despite the ‘practice’ of penalising forced or accidental ball/body contact being in conflict with the Rules (‘Rules’ means the Rule Proper together with the embedded Guidance, which is instruction from the FIH Rules Committee about the application of the Rule – Rule and Rule Guidance should not be considered to be independent of each other – apparent conflicts between the two arise because of exceptions or special circumstances, set out in the Guidance, which must be taken in to account. Separating Rule and Rule Guidance and discounting one or the other is incorrect. If the FIH did not want participants to take account of Rule Guidance it would not be in the rulebook.)
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.
The last clause in the Guidance to Rule 9.9. ‘hangs’ on without attempting to play the ball with their stick it is not an offence anywhere on the pitch or in any stage of play – such as a penalty corner – to close on a player receiving the ball or in possession of the ball, nor is it an offence to move into the line of a shot to intercept or to attempt to intercept the ball with the stick – to prohibit any of these legitimate playing actions would be to prohibit defending. The clause is in fact out of place in a Rule which is about dangerous propelling of the ball, it only states what Rule 9.11. gives us, with the addition of movement by the defender, it should be part of Rule.9.11. – as should the clause before it, concerning the dangerous raising of a ball with a flick or scoop.
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.
I have no idea how an umpire determines the offence of ‘positioning with intention” , from - (sic) a player commits an offence – if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball with the foot, hand or body – if a defending player is beyond playing distance of the ball. I have not been offered any explanation, despite repeated requests, but some umpires appear to assume from this clause that if a player is hit with the ball – especially while defending the goal – they intended to be hit with the ball and should be penalised. Such an assumption cannot be justified. Assumptions without clear evidence should not be made in any case.
Besides the problem of ‘positioning with intention’ there is the problem of the meaning of ‘legitimate evasive action’. What does legitimate evasive action mean, when a defender evading the ball – obviously to avoid being injured by it – is not seen by an umpire to be taking legitimate action and such evasion does not result in penalty against the player who propelled the ball ? It seems ‘crazy’ to me that whether or not an action by one player is ‘officially’ dangerous to another depends not on the nature of the ball propelled (at an opponent, at a certain height, at high velocity) but on the (often forced) reaction of the defending player – and that then, that reaction is ignored.
Why in the incident below did the umpire apparently decide that the evasion of the ball by the defender was not legitimate? Did it even ‘register’ in his mind that the ball was propelled in a way that caused an evasive action that was necessary to avoid injury? There is the possibility that the umpire considered the positioning of the defender on the goal-line to be illegitimate (despite an absence of Rule on the matter, except maybe the strange – (sic) positioning with the intention of playing the ball in that way)
In the incident below the flicker uses the body of the out-running defender as a ‘target’ and a ‘shield’, so that the goal-line defender sees the ball very late, if at all, if the out-runner evades the shot. It’s a win/win situation for the attacker, because if he hits the out-runner (at any height) when the out runner is 5m or more away (and often when the out runner is within 5m when hit above knee height) another penalty corner will commonly be awarded – despite the Rules on dangerous play and on intimidation.
.
In the clip below, from a different game, the same attacker uses exactly the same technique. This time the defender on the goal-line did not see the ball in time to evade it and was hit. His skull was fractured and his ear drum perforated. The umpire (unaware of the seriousness of the injury – but that is not relevant) awarded a penalty stroke.
.
The following incident requires a separate article because of what led to the award of the penalty corner and the final decision – the reason the defence were awarded a free (it was not for the dangerously raised ball) contrasts sharply with the (intentional) targeting of defending players. Sufficient to say that the television commentators thought a penalty stroke would (and should) have been awarded but for the fact that the ball was going wide of the goal – which according to their information made the shot dangerous – when an on target shot would not have been dangerous play, even if it did hit the defender in the face. Where did that idea come from?
.
Moving away for the moment from the endangering of a player on the goal-line, there is the emergence of the term ‘Suicide Runner’ – a term used to justify the endangering a defender running towards the ball in an attempt to prevent the shot by tackling or intercepting the ball with his stick , both perfectly legitimate defensive actions, by pretending that such proactive defending is illegal.
The clip is from a coaching series produced in 2004 entitled Suicide Running. Which runners were considered ‘suicidal’ and which playing legitimately was left open for discussion, but it was not long before all running from the goal towards the ball at a penalty corner was being declared an offence – which is certainly not the case. Having played the ball dangerously – the Dutch flicker hits the Australian out runner high on the arm – the Dutch players then try to ‘con’ the umpire into believing he was struck below the knee (and believe that even if that contact was unavoidable by the defender another penalty corner should be awarded – a result of ‘expectation building’ by umpires).
.
A few years later the notion that an out-runner is at fault if hit with the ball had crept into all levels of club hockey. I have no idea what offence the umpire though the defender had committed – he probably didn’t think at all. It’s not at all unusual to see a penalty corner ‘automatically’ awarded for any sort of ball body contact by a defender in the circle, (so much for subjective judgement) in fact it has become accepted and expected (so much for common sense).
.
This raised reverse edge strike caused legitimate evasive action. – Reaction from the umpire to this clearly dangerous strike ? – None.
Another similar revere edge strike strike in open play. Incredibly the umpire awarded a penalty stroke when he might, more sensibly have yellow carded the striker – there was nothing accidental about the endangering of opponents; the striker could not have cared less.
.
Finally there is this incident in which the defender bravely defends a head high shot with her stick – which is unusual in itself – evade or be hit is much more common especially when there is sight blocking going on. There is no evasive action caused but the ball is, in my opinion, certainly dangerous. It forces self-defence and without such defence the player would either give away a goal or be hit with the ball and injured – which seems to me in the circumstances to be a workable definition of a dangerously played ball – that the ball was raised with a flick and at the goal is irrelevant because neither of these actions should be carried out in a way that endangers another player.
I believe that even if it was properly enforced – which it isn’t – causing evasive action is an inadequate and senseless way to determine if a player has been endangered by the ball propelling action of an opponent. It makes sense to declare a ball has been played dangerously if it is played at an opponent, at above a given height or above the (standing) elbow height of the player (the defending player in the clip is diminutive and should not be penalised for that), at a velocity that could injure. It should also be clear that there is no 5m limit, adding “and within 15m” to the existing “above knee height and within 5m” rounds out a set of criteria that players as well as umpires can judge with consistency. (or even adding ” and within 20m” to cope with the introduction of the own-goal which raises the possibility of a high velocity flat trajectory drag-flick raised into the circle in the hope of a deflection).
Players cannot play to the Rules, even if they want to, if they do not know what they are.
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. Alternative to penalty corner.
There is I believe a need for a penalty restart that is not a penalty-corner because the award of a penalty corner is too severe a ‘punishment’ in many cases.
It could take the form of a free-ball to the attacking side (which can be played directly into the circle, but not lifted at all) centrally on the opponent’s 23m line – possibly with opponents not permitted to be within 10m of the ball until it has been played.
There are some easy candidates for such an award. Incidents that at one time led to a bully restart (or still could) but now result in the award of a penalty corner.
Ball intentionally over base-line by defender – (the long corner could also be replaced with an more advantageous restart, so all over base-line balls off the defending side).
Ball accidentally caught and held in goalkeeping equipment.
Ball squeezed directly upwards from between opposing sticks or deflected upwards off a goalkeeper in the circle where there is the possibility of danger if it is allowed to fall among players.
There are other incidents, which may be considered more contentious, but should not be penalty situations at all.
Accidental foot/ball contact by a defender in circle from which benefit (less than directly preventing a goal) is gained by the player hit. (At the moment not an offence but universally penalised as if it were.
The ‘gains unfair benefit’ clause needs to be restored to enable the proper award of a penalty stroke when a goal is directly prevented by a ball/body contact – provided of course there has been no prior offence by the attacking side, such as a dangerously propelled ball. The award of the suggested penalty restart would be for other ‘benefit gained’ but accidental contact.
A penalty corner should never be awarded for an involuntary (unintentional) ball/body contact, particularly a forced contact, as such contact is not an offence.
A penalty stoke should be awarded when a goal from a legitimate shot (or a deflection from another defender arising from a legitimate shot) is directly prevented by a ball/body contact by a defending field player, in order to discourage reckless defending – self endangerment – i.e. as a safety measure and also for fairness to the attacking team.
Out-runner at penalty corner, who is trying to play at the ball with the stick, hit below knee with a shot towards the goal when within 5m of the striker. (Conflict within the Rules resulting in a Mandatory penalty corner for a ball/body contact that is not, according to the Guidance to Rule 9.11.,an offence)
Defender playing an above shoulder shot at the goal that is off-target.(A ridiculous penalty because the Advice to Umpires contained in the Rules of Hockey makes it clear that an offence should not be penalised unless opponents are disadvantaged. An attacker cannot play at an over shoulder height ball and the defender playing it may keep it in play by prevent it going out over the base-line - which is of advantage to the attacking side, not disadvantage.)
The two lists may not be complete, there are however at least six situations where an alternative to the penalty corner might be more appropriate, which combined, must occur thousands of times in each season.
The Own Goal Rule has just been introduced (Rules of Hockey 2013-15) as a Mandatory Experiment (it has been a Rule in the EHL for some time) because, we are told, umpires are occasionally unsure if the ball was touched in the circle at all or unsure if the ball was last touched off the stick of an attacker – a difficulty that possibly occurs a few times in each season. I find the reason given for the introduction of the Own Goal unconvincing, I believe this is in fact another misguided attempt to make the game more ‘exciting’ or ‘spectacular’. It will lead to a few more injuries each season as the ball will be ‘wellied’ into the circle, possibly a foot or so off the ground (because such raising of a hit is not currently penalised), probably from somewhere between the 23m line and the hash-circle, in the hope of ‘getting something’ i.e. a leg contact (which will result in the award of a penalty corner even if it should not) or a deflection. It is not impossible that the ball may be drag-flicked into the circle from beyond the 23m line even from a free-ball. It is inevitable that some high deflections off such speculative hits (and flicks if they are permitted to occur) will strike players and will cause injury.
I cannot see how the introduction of the Own Goal fits with the FIH statement “The emphasis is on safety” or even with the recently introduced ban on playing any fee ball awarded within the opposition’s 23m area, into the circle ; I believe this suggestion does fit a ‘reasonable safety’ agenda. Reducing the number of penalty corners awarded is of itself a safety measure, as the defending of a penalty corner is probably the most dangerous aspect of hockey.
Frighteningly bizarre conduct from Internet field hockey forum moderators, they scold forum contributors for daring to question their judgement on a Rules matter and call their opinions “frighteningly bizarre”, when in fact it is the moderators who are wrong.
The issue was whether or not a ball raised at a goalkeeper’s head could or should be considered dangerous play. The true answer, as usual, begins “It depends…” and is “Yes”or “No” or “Maybe”.
For the purposes of the Rules concerning a dangerously played ball, a goalkeeper is not distinguished in any way from either “a defender” or “an opponent”, so logically (but perhaps not reasonably) any ‘dangerously at’ Rule which applies to field-players also applies to goalkeepers.
Should anyone think that bizarre they should take the matter up with the FIH Rules Committee (before the issue of the next rulebook in 2015) so any suggested change in the status of a goalkeeper vis-á-vis the dangerously played ball can be considered and an FIH RC and FIH Executice approved amendment made to the Rules of Hockey. Otherwise it’s conceivable that umpires might apply their own interpretations or be ‘advised’ in a UMB to treat goalkeepers differently.
Okay, that last sentence is ‘tongue-in-cheek’, goalkeepers are obviously better protected by the equipment they are required/permitted to wear than field-players are and don’t play in the same way – they deliberately put their body in the way of the ball and are permitted to do so – and there should be different Rules for goalkeepers in respect to the dangerously played ball in such circumstances. But does that mean they cannot be endangered and excuse reckless play by attacking players? No and no and nor does it mean that Umpire Managers et al. can invent such Rules or coach as if they already exist.What it means is that the Rule anomaly should be addressed.
A ball can break a face grid or dent a helmet if propelled hard enough (which may mean at the very least the goalkeeper cannot continue as a fully equipped goalkeeper if there is no replacement helmet) and there is no good reason anyway why an attacker should be propelling the ball at high velocity from less than 5m at the head of a goalkeeper, even if the goalkeeper is wearing a helmet. The ‘bottom line’, the ‘clincher’ in answer to the question asked, is that propelling the ball at above knee height at a player from within 5m of that player is currently a dangerous play offence even if ‘in practice’ such an offence is not penalised if the player is a fully equipped goalkeeper and the the goalkeeper is up-right (be it standing, kneeling or sitting) and facing the striker.
When ‘practice’ does not follow Rule, umpires not only put players at risk, they also put themselves at a different kind of risk. It is not in the least bizarre to question ‘practice’ or to wonder why, in regard to the dangerously played ball here are not special Rules for goalkeepers, or to ask where the ‘lines’ concerning the endangerment of a goalkeeper are ‘drawn’. A real danger is that players other than the goalkeeper will be injured by deflections or rebounds when high close-range shots are made at goalkeeper or that shooters will take the same attitude to shooting at defending field-players as they currently do when shooting towards a fully equipped goalkeeper (which is the case).
I understand that in the USA at some levels of play, propelling a ball at above shoulder height at a goalkeeper i.e. at the head, is penalised as an offence. Once again a sports authority outside the FIH has shown the way. The FIH Rules Committee would do well to at least consider if the lead given fits with their declared ‘Emphasis on safety’, because current umpiring ‘practice ‘ in this area certainly does not. But umpires are declaring that they are “doing what ‘the FIH’ want”. (By “the FIH” they seem to mean what they themselves want and many of them have no hesitation in declaring themselves to be authoritative in matters of Rule and to try to ‘yellow card’ or ‘red card’ dissenting opinion, as if in charge of a match on a pitch, when engaged in what should be a discussion on a forum).
Take as an example of difference of opinion, a declaration made by one contributor concerning the fully equipped goalkeeper, to the effect that an umpire should behave towards a goalkeeper with regard to the dangerously played ball as if a goalkeeper was wearing all the protective equipment he or she was permitted to wear (and of the best quality?). I would take the opposite view. I think umpires should umpire as if goalkeepers in general were wearing only the minimum protective equipment required as listed in the Rules of Hockey to be considered ‘fully equipped’, which is helmet, leg-guards, gloves and kickers, because there is the possibility that this is what a ‘fully equipped’ goalkeeper will be wearing.
The goalkeeper is not ‘at fault’ for wearing only the minimum protection required, but an umpire may be at fault for umpiring as if a goalkeeper (or all goalkeepers) were completely protected from all possible ball impact. The Rules in regard to ‘fully equipped’ are obviously outdated, but it needs to be borne in mind that the Rules of Hockey are issued for all players and officials, at all levels, and not every goalkeeper is going to have the maximum possible protection. This is possibly a matter for Rule Variation at International level and (with permission) League Rules at other levels, but no matter how well protected a goalkeeper may be, that does not negate existing Rules or allow recklessly dangerous propelling of the ball at any player, including a goalkeeper.
Beyond the certainty of ‘within 5m’ any ball raised at another player is dangerous only if the on-pitch umpire at the time considers it to be so, because ‘legitimate evasive action’ is a subjective judgement. The ‘judgement’ made will depend on what the umpire has been instructed or coached to do in such circumstances and here we move into an area that really is frighteningly bizarre.
2008 Olympics.
2010 World Cup.
What could be more frightening or bizarre than for umpires to give attackers the idea that an ‘on target’ shot at the goal is not, and cannot in any circumstances, be considered dangerous play, or treating all defenders in front of the goal in the circle as if they were fully equipped goalkeepers AND as if there is a different dangerously played ball Rule for fully equipped goalkeepers, but not describing that Rule – that is more than just bizarre.
(Add to that bizarre Rule Guidance from the Rules of Hockey that a shot, if going wide of the goal, may be considered dangerous play if it hits a defender – and if a defender attempts to play an above should shot, that is going wide of the goal,with his stick, a penalty corner will be awarded) ,
Who would not question such ‘logic’ from both ‘umpiring practice’ and from the FIH Rules Committee?
Well forum moderators obviously, who coincidentally, happen to be umpires and of the kind who won’t tolerate any criticism of their view.
I wrote an article some time ago about a field hockey Umpire Coaching paper entitled The Lifted Ball , written in 2001 by John Gawley (then a FIH Level 3 Umpire Coach). I described it as the most conflicted document I had read about a Rule of Hockey. The Rule concerns the dangerously played (raised) ball. http://martinzigzag.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/contradictions-and-conflicts/
This paper is however still the only one to have been written on the subject by an FIH Umpire Coach at any level and the only contribution to the information concerning a dangerously raised ball provided by the Umpire Manager’s Briefing (for use in FIH Tournaments but considered to be generally useful) is this: -
Ball off the Ground
Blow only in dangerous situations everywhere on the pitch - forget lifted, think danger
Low balls over defenders sticks in a controlled manner that hit half shin pad are not dangerous
Which is of very little use to anyone who requires a description of what might be considered dangerous play. The FIH Umpire Coaching Videos are also devoid of any instruction in this area.
Those familiar with hockey will be aware of the conflicted manner in which the Rule is applied (or not applied) in practice. Many new to hockey watching the game today would have no idea that there was such a thing as a dangerously propelled ball: we now have umpires forcefully declaring that an on target shot at the goal cannot be dangerous play (I first heard this said in televised commentary during the 2008 Olympics. It was repeated by an umpire to a player at the 2010 World Cup, but nothing to this effect has been published by the FIH ). There is an obvious need for a clearly written Rule that is based on objective criteria, rather than almost entirely on the judgement of ‘legitimate evasive action’ – which is ’in practice’ ignored (such judgement is not entirely based on LEA only because raising the ball at an opponent who is within 5m is prohibited – but this too is often ignored).
In 2005 an ‘updated’ version of the 2001 paper, entitled The Raised Ball and Danger was published, It is reproduced in full at the end of this article. Unfortunately the ‘update’ is in fact nothing of the sort.
The facility for a defender to play at an on target shot at the the goal at above shoulder height was introduced as a Mandatory Experiment in 2003 and it is beyond belief that Gawley while updating his own paper in 2005 would not have taken that Rule change into account and amended his paper accordingly. The Rule change was adopted into Full Rule in 2005 and by August of that year Gawley would have known it would be. The prohibition on raising the ball into the circle was withdrawn in 2004 but the ban is still present in the ‘updated’ document. Did John Gawley revise the paper personally? I very much doubt it. The ‘revision’ is just a ‘hatchet job’ which seems to have been carried out (by someone too lazy and/or too stupid) to remove parts of the original in conflict with (sic) current umpiring practice in regard to the raised shot towards the goal.
For example this:- A raised shot has to be made at goal, not deliberately at a defender standing either in goal or between the goal and the striker. from the 2001 paper has been cut from the 2005 version. That is not updating to reflect any Rule change by the then HRB (which was renamed the FIH Rules Committee in 2011) : no responsible Rule Authority would make a change which permitted deliberate targeting of opponents: the HRB certainly did not and the FIH Rules Committee have not.
This (horribly conflicted) summary passage from the 2001 paper :-
During open play, rising shots at goal are permitted provided the defending players have time to defend the goal rather than themselves. No player should EVER be permitted to raise the ball, anywhere on the pitch, that is dangerous to other players.
If defenders other than goalkeepers dressed in protective clothing or helmeted “kicking backs” (who have goalkeepers’ privileges in the circle), elect to defend their goal, then a shot that would have been permitted against a fully-equipped goalkeeper should be permitted against them. And if they stop or play the ball with their bodies or sticks above their shoulders, they should be penalised unless they were endangered.(my bold underline) has had the last four words removed in the 2005 edition, but the outdated prohibition on a defender playing an above shoulder on target shot is still there – that makes no sense whatsoever in an ‘update’ .
This paper was not just “edited to bring it up to date” (circa 2005) it was ‘butchered’ to better reflect (sic) current practice.
Of course the removal of unless they were endangered – which entirely changes what was written in the sentence which contains it and the previous sentence – could have been an accident, but that seems unlikely, especially in view of the other deletion. It is ironic that the word ‘danger’ was introduced in the new title but reference to incidents of dangerous play were removed from the ‘updated’ paper
Although absolutely nothing else has been published on the subject since 2001, even the 2005 version is seen as ‘old hat’ by those who consider themselves to be ‘in the know’. This, for example, from both papers:- ”the same conditions for dealing with a dropping ball apply for shots at goal as elsewhere on the pitch” has been ‘over-ruled’ by an FIH Umpire (who possibly did not know of the existence of these papers) who declared on an Internet hockey forum “aerial Rules do not apply to shots at the goal “. This individual described those who would apply the existing published Rules concerning a falling raised ball as having ” stubborn and outdated ideas about what constitutes danger.“
THE 2005 ‘UPDATE’.
The Raised Ball and Danger by J M GAWLEY
INTRODUCTION
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 centimetres.
A player having to face a ball approaching in the air should have a clear view of the full flight of that ball and also have time either to
move out of its way, or to play or attempt to play it in a legitimate and safe manner So far as Goalkeepers are concerned, they
deliberately put themselves "into the firing line" but are equipped to do so. Nevertheless, even they can be forced into self-protection
rather than protection of their goal by dangerously-raised balls.
INTENTIONAL LIFT
Lift at an Opponent
If the ball is intentionally put into the air at an opponent at any height anywhere on the pitch in contravention of Rule 9.8: “Players must not intentionally raise the ball from a hit except for a shot at goal” the player who raises the ball is in breach of the Rule. Note that an accidental lift should not be penalised unless it is dangerous in itself or causes danger, e.g. by striking someone. A ball lifted over another player’s stick is NOT an offence unless dangerous. Flicks and scoops are permissible but not if towards an opponent within 5m. Note that it is permissible intentionally to raise the ball for a shot at goal.
Tackling Lift
There is nothing in the Rules to prevent any player in possession of the ball from lifting it over the stick of an opponent to resist a tackle,
be it in the outfield, in the circle, or entering the circle. The last point is important: where the ball is lifted in such a manner over an
opponent's stick and enters the circle while still in the air, there is NO offence.Tactical LiftWhen a ball is deliberately raised in a legitimate manner (normally a scoop or flick) anywhere on the pitch the umpire should decide
upon its merits. This form of play is used for tactical purposes, often to reverse the opposing defence. In general, it is fair to say that
players who raise the ball in this manner consciously try to avoid danger to anyone in the flight path of the ball. The umpire is therefore
seeking reasons why such a raised ball SHOULD be penalised. A player receiving a dropping ball should be given time and space in
which safely to do so without real or threatened interference from an opponent (Rule 9.9):”Players must not approach within 5 metres
of an opponent receiving a falling raised ball until it has been received, controlled and is on the ground.” Note that such a ball MAY land
in the circle without penalty unless it has been intentionally HIT into the air.
If a player of each team is already in the place where the ball will land, i.e. not having moved into that space, then any danger from the falling ball is caused by the player who initially raised it. Accordingly, a free hit should quickly be awarded against the player who raised the ball.However, if a player of each team moves to a position where a ball that has already been raised will land, the first player to arrive must be permitted to play the ball and the opponent must keep clear. But, if both are likely to arrive at the same time, then the player of the team that raised the ball must remain clear until the ball has landed and should be penalised for failure to do so.
ACCIDENTAL LIFT
On the other hand, the ball is often raised accidentally, usually by a stick interfering with the flight of the ball, rather than by any deliberate attempt to play it. In such circumstances, the ball is likely to fly upwards in an unpredictable trajectory, thus being both dangerous in itself and likely to cause danger. A ball hit some 15 cm in the air into a crowded circle is an example. The Umpire, therefore, is likely to be seeking reasons why this raised ball should NOT be penalised but should wait to determine whether there is actual danger.
INTERPRETATION
No matter where on the field the ball is raised, and no matter what the circumstances of the lift, the umpire must always judge whether
a player has been genuinely endangered in any of the ways described. Umpires should be on their guard against players who simulate
ducking out of the way of raised balls simply to try to "con" them into thinking that such a ball is dangerous. Similarly, umpires should not
be misled by defenders, often in goal, who allow themselves to be hit by the ball so as to be able to claim that the shot was dangerous.The same standards of judgement must be applied wherever and whenever the ball is raised. It is therefore important that umpires
recognise, and agree before each game according to the level and playing conditions of that game, what is the likely distance inside
which those particular players are likely to have to defend their own persons instead of playing the ball properly. Other factors need to
be considered for raised shots at goal, however.
RAISED SHOTS AT GOAL IN OPEN PLAY
The goal is there to be shot at. The goalkeeper is well-protected and has no grounds for protest about high shots at goal. So far as any
other defenders are concerned, if they stand in the goal to defend high shots, they must accept the penalty if the ball hits them contrary
to Rule 9.10: Field players must not stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their bodies.” They can be said
, perhaps, to have arrogated to themselves the duty of goalkeeper without having goalkeeper's privileges. High shots include hits, flicks
and scoops.
Having said this, it must nevertheless be remembered that no player should ever be put to the necessity of self-defence, and that includes goalkeepers. Although properly protected, goalkeepers can still be injured by balls projected at them from so short a range and in such a manner that they are unable to adopt a naturally protective posture.
In high level games, with physically fit, young, skilled players, it is possible that the minimum safe distance for a rising shot is about 3 m
etres. In less skilled games, that distance will probably be not less than 9 metres and could be more. In all cases, the distances may
increase dependent on other circumstances, not least whether the players defending the goal have a clear view of the whole flight of the
ball from the moment that it is first propelled upwards. Judgement of what is dangerous must necessarily be subjective. Perhaps the
soundest advice for the umpire is to consider that any raised ball is dangerous unless proved otherwise. Players close to or near the line
of a shot at goal must have time and room to react safely and play the ball legitimately.
In general, it is probably fair to say that a rising ball that would not be permitted on the grounds of safety in the outfield should not be permitted, for the same reasons, in the circle, whether for a shot at goal or, indeed, for clearing a shot at goal – a goalkeeper’s kick, for example. The exception is that the intentionally raised hit is permitted in the circle for a shot at goal; otherwise the same parameters apply.
Note, however, that this advice is concerned mainly with high shots in OPEN PLAY. In these circumstances, there are usually few players
in the circle and, as often as not, the shot is made in a one-on-one situation. During Penalty Corners, where numbers of players are
required by the Rules to operate within the circle, other considerations apply, all concerned primarily with Safety.SummaryDuring open play, rising shots at goal are permitted provided the defending players have time to defend the goal rather than themselves.
No player should EVER be permitted to raise the ball, anywhere on the pitch, that is dangerous to other players. If defenders other than
goalkeepers dressed in protective clothing or helmeted "kicking backs" (who have goalkeepers' privileges in the circle), elect to defend
their goal, then a shot that would have been permitted against a fully-equipped goalkeeper should be permitted against them. Note that
any defender may use any part of the front of the stick at any height to defend a specific shot at goal (Rule 9.6) but, if the shot was going
to miss, a penalty corner must be awarded. Other than that, any raised ball in the circle and its defence must be judged on its merits,
i.e., was the shot dangerous in itself or, alternatively, did it cause danger?
RAISED SHOTS AT GOAL AT PENALTY CORNERS AND FROM CORNERS
Players in the CircleThe Penalty Corner demands a maximum of 5 defenders behind their back or goal-line and places no limit on the number of attackers
round the circle, though in practice the attackers usually number six or seven. There can thus be twelve or so players in the circle during
the conduct of a Penalty Corner. For a Corner, and for other forms of Hit-in and Free Hit to the attackers where there has been a delay
in play so as to allow players to gather in and near the circle, there is no limit to the numbers of players who may be in the circle.Although hits to the attack from the area of corner flags (corners, hits-in & free hits) are taken in open play, they are considered here
with the Penalty Corner as likely to cause crowding within the circle.It can thus be seen that any ball raised into or within the circle in such circumstances has a great potential for danger. Such crowding
underlines the need for umpires to judge whether players close to or in the flight path of a raised ball have time properly to react to it.
This is not to say that all raised balls in the circle are dangerous, nor that balls raised unintentionally into the circle are necessarily
dangerous, but merely to indicate the potential for danger and hence the need for acute awareness and observation by the umpire.
Penalty Corner
The defenders (including the Goalkeeper) are prohibited from deliberately raising the ball from a hit within the circle, or indeed outside it
- Rule 9.8 applies.The attackers, however, MAY deliberately raise the ball from a hit or other type of shot in the circle, but only for a shot at goal - not for a
hit across the circle, for example. The one caveat to this permission is that the FIRST hit at goal at a Penalty Corner must comply with
Rule 13.2k: “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 its crossing the goal-line, at a height of not more than 460mm (the height of the backboard) before any deflection,
for a goal to be scored.”Generally, the ball that is raised in the circle has a possible element of danger. But remember that any player may raise the ball over the
stick of an opponent to resist a tackle.Once the first hit at goal in a Penalty Corner has been made, all subsequent hits may be at any height consonant with safety, as already
described. However, still with the Penalty Corner, any other stroke to raise the ball may be made at any time, with no limit being placed
on the height of the ball at any part of its flight. The only caveat on these forms of shot - usually scoops or flicks - is that of safety. In this
context, if a defender in a normal stance within 5 metres of the first shot at goal is hit by the ball below the knees, a penalty corner should
be awarded. If the defender is hit above the knee, a free hit should be awarded to the defending team. And let us remember that the
Penalty Corner Rule - specifically those sections applying to the first hit - ceases to apply if the ball goes beyond 5 metres from the circle
before re-entering it (Rule 13.2m).The Scooped BallThe ball that is flicked or scooped from near the inside edge of the circle so that it goes high over all heads and falls so that it will enter
the goal just below the crossbar is not very likely to be dangerous when falling; the player(s) in the goal-mouth will see the ball raised, will
see it during its flight, and will have time to decide how to defend the falling ball. They therefore have no excuse for playing the ball with the
ir sticks whilst it is above their shoulders, for hitting the ball away in a dangerous manner, nor for using any part of their body to stop the
ball. Only if the flick or scoop is at very short range, or if there are players in the line of sight between striker and goal, might the striker
be penalised, and then usually only if the ball is still rising or if it is so low throughout its flight as to be obscured, for the receiver, by other
players.Umpires should remember that the same conditions for dealing with a dropping ball apply for shots at goal as elsewhere on the pitch
i.e. the player receiving the ball must be given time and space (5 metres) in which to receive it safely, i.e. the receiving defender should
not be harried by a close opponent.
The Rising Shot
Having accepted the caveats noted above for the Penalty Corner, let us broaden thought to embrace the crowded circle. The same considerations previously mentioned still apply, i.e. the goal is there to be shot at, and defenders who arrogate to themselves the duty of goalkeeper must accept the penalty if they prevent a goal other than legitimately with their sticks. But, given the crowding already discussed, it is even more important that players defending any raised ball, regardless of its height, should have a clear view of the ball’s trajectory and have time either to remove themselves from its path or to play or try to play the ball legitimately. If they do not have such time, the ball raised at them must be considered dangerous and penalised immediately. But umpires should be on their guard against players who deliberately allow themselves to be hit by the ball so as to be able to claim that the lift was dangerous.
It is the rising ball that is most likely to cause most danger, either because it can strike a player's body, where its energy is likely to be
absorbed, or because it can touch part of a stick and fly off unpredictably, with no loss of energy, to hit another player.
Summary
When the circle is crowded, such as at Penalty Corners and for hits from near the corner flag areas, there is a high potential for danger
from any raised ball. Umpires must be alert to the risks involved but should not overreact merely because the ball is in the air or the body
of a defender in the goal is struck by the ball. They should instead consider whether players have the necessary time and distance to avoid
physical contact with the raised ball in favour of playing or attempting to play it legitimately, and not flinch from applying the appropriate
penalty if avoiding action could have been taken.
The necessity for the first HIT at goal at a penalty corner not to cross the goal-line at a height greater than 460mm should also be borne in mind.
The Field Hockey Rule about playing the ball in a dangerous way is sparse. Much of the information about the dangerous propelling of the ball is distributed among other Rules and also has mixed into it Guidance about the playing of the ball with the body – which is,or should be, considering that a dangerously played ball is described as one that causes legitimate evasive action, an entirely different and separate matter.
Rule 9.8 Players must not play the ball dangerously or in a way which leads to dangerous play.
Players are permitted to raise the ball with a flick or scoop provided it is not dangerous. A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous.(Placed here for the purposes of this article, but taken from Rule 9.9, which is the Rule prohibiting the intentional raising of the ball with a hit – note there is no lower or minimum height given for “considered dangerous” )
A ball is considered dangerous when it causes legitimate evasive action by players.
“Play the ball dangerously” is not described nor is “play which leads to dangerous play” or “dangerous play” because these are subjective judgements made by an umpire. A ball is dangerous when it causes legitimate evasive action by players. Again, legitimate evasive action is a subjective judgement made by an umpire. We are not told on what criteria such judgements should be based, many umpires describe the process as ‘gut instinct’ and ‘selling the decision’ and seem happy with that if players don’t complain (not that players are allowed to complain, that is considered dissent.)
There are objective criteria that can be used but they apply only to the propelling of the ball within 5m of an opponent; all judgement of a ball in relation to the dangerous propelling of it from beyond 5m of an opponent is entirely subjective. This means that players can only appeal for or against dangerous play decisions when the action in question took place within 5m of the player endangered, or not endangered as the case may be; there is no appeal (video referral) possible to examine an umpire’s personal opinion that the propelling of the ball in other circumstances was or was not dangerous.What criteria would the video umpire look for? Evasive action is not based on the fact that evasive action was taken but whether or not the evasion was legitimate, and that is a personal opinion.
The lack of objective criteria when the ball is propelled at a player from beyond 5m is unsatisfactory because 5m is an unrealistic ‘cut off’ distance – and it is treated as a cut off distance although it is mentioned only as a distance within which some actions are considered dangerous - there is in fact no limit to the distance from which a ball propelled at another player may be considered dangerous to that player, but ‘in practice’ 5m is, illogically, rigidly adhered to.
The basing of “dangerously played ball” on “legitimate evasive action” i.e. the judgement of the action of the player propelling the ball being determined by the reaction of the player possibly endangered by that ball, is also illogical: there are a number of circumstances where there will be no reaction at all from the defender, the defender being unaware that the ball has been propelled in their direction and others where the velocity of the ball and the distance it was propelled from (even considerably beyond 5m) makes evasion impossible.
In addition to those problems there are problems of ‘attitude’ to the positioning of defenders, particularly when positioned between the goal and a shooter in the circle. Some umpires see evasive action as an attempt to ‘con’ the umpire into believing that a ball was propelled dangerously or see successful evasive action as a demonstration that the ball was not played dangerously – “…the player had time to get out of the way of it so not dangerous” is an often expressed view. The fact that a dangerously played ball is defined by legitimate evasive action so evasive action can be legitimate and a reason to declare a ball dangerous doesn’t seem to lodge in the minds of these people, they don’t see any contradiction between their view and the Rule Guidance given in the Rules of Hockey. The same umpires also often take the view that a player who has failed to take evasive action has remaining in the path of the ball with the intention of using the body to play it – even when there is clearly an attempt to play at the ball with the stick – such players are said to place their body behind the stick with the intention of playing the ball with the body if they miss it with the stick. (As an aside to that, the same umpires may hold the view that defenders are obliged to defend their feet with the stick, so should position the stick in front of the feet – but having positioned the feet behind the stick, if a foot is hit with the ball, there is then from the prior ‘argument’ assumed to be intention to play the ball with the foot). These conflicting ‘catch 22′ style attitudes alone are sufficient grounds for the provision of objective criteria for the judgement of a dangerously played ball, when the ball is raised at velocity at defenders, rather than the sole use of purely subjective judgement (or, more commonly, the following of specific instruction or even just ingrained habit or ‘dogma’).
*********************************
Rule 9.9 prohibits the intentional raising of the ball with a hit but contains Guidance on the raising of the ball towards an opponent, who is within 5m, with a flick or a scoop. That Guidance would be more appropriately placed in Rule 9.8. (as above)
Rule 9.9 Players must not intentionally raise the ball from a hit except for a shot at goal.
A raised hit must be judged explicitly on whether or not it is raised intentionally. It is not an offence to raise the ball unintentionally from a hit, including a free hit, anywhere on the field unless it is dangerous.
Players are permitted to raise the ball with a flick or scoop provided it is not dangerous. A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous. (Note there is no lower or minimum height given for “dangerous” to be considered)
A defender who is clearly running into the shot or into the taker without attempting to play the ball with their stick must be penalised for dangerous play.
The above clause (which, for an unknown reason, is the only one given twice in the Rules of Hockey) clearly doesn’t belong in Guidance to a Rule about a dangerously played ball ( a ball propelled in a dangerous way) or a Rule about the intentional raising of the ball with a hit. It would be more appropriately be placed in Rule 9.11. the ball/body contact Rule. Self-endangerment could in any case be described as irresponsible or reckless play, rather than dangerous play, to distinguish it from play that endangered another player, particularly with the ball. If a defender’s action does endanger both parties then it is both reckless (and/or irresponsible) and dangerous.
Clearly the raising of the ball with a hit referred to in Rule 9.9 cannot be considered to be dangerous play every time it occurs even if it is done intentionally and this has given rise to an ‘in practice’ contradiction of the Rule Guidance, which is expressed succinctly in the Umpire Manger’s Briefing for FIH Tournaments as “forget-lifted – think danger“. In another passage the UMB states “a ball raised to half-shin-pad height is not dangerous” (which is generally true only if the player hit is standing at the time). Again ‘in practice’ a raised hit, outside the circle or across the circle, intentional or not, is not penalised unless it is hit at above knee height towards a player positioned within 5m of the striker or is hit at a player’s upper body and causes evasive action or hits the player (and sometime not even then).
Legal intentional raising of the ball with a hit, that is when the raised hit is an on target shot at the goal, has developed a mythology of its own. In fact at the 2008 Olympics a verbal UMB seems to have issued to the match umpires (and television commentators),
which declared that no ‘on target’ shot at the goal, be it raised hit or flick, could be considered dangerous play. The same advice was given to the umpires and television commentators at the 2010 World Cups Such instruction makes a nonsense of course of (the already regularly ignored) ‘legitimate evasive action’ as a definition of a dangerously played ball.
The real issue with the raised hit is the raising of the ball into the circle from outside the circle and the raising of the ball across rather than at the goal in the circle. The latter is not a big problem at the moment, it happens too often to be accidental, such hits are commonly raised to just below knee height, but are generally dealt with by umpires reasonable well when it is obvious they are dangerous. It may however become more of an issue with the event of the ‘Own Goal’ and the possibility of more ‘hit and hope’. ‘Accidentally’ raised hits across the face of the goal – if they are not raised to above knee height they are not going to be penalised if current ‘practice’ is any guide – that will not be good enough for a supposed emphasis on safety and certainly unfair.
The present Rule is inadequate to deal with the illegally intentionally raised hit because of the effect of the advice given in UMB’s and because it is very difficult to be sure that a players has raised the ball intentionally- without certainty there can be no penalty, although there appears to be no difficulty in being certain that what looked like an accidental or forced ball/body contact was ‘in fact’ intentional or made voluntarily .
The easiest way to deal with intentional raising of hits into the circle is to prohibit any raising of the ball directly into the circle with a hit (with a small leeway for surface imperfection and ball skipping e.g. ball height off the surface). At the same time the ban on the propelling of any ball directly into the circle from a free awarded in the opponent’s 23m area should be withdrawn (which would in turn free the Self-Pass from then unnecessary restrictions imposed because of the ban on playing a free directly into the circle – but that is in a previous article).It is sufficient for safety of the direct pass into the circle that the ball be taken back outside the hash circle .
We don’t need ‘belt and braces’ on the free within the 23m area, when there is no corresponding restriction on playing the ball into the circle in open play – except that it should not be intentionally raised – especially when such raising of the ball is so often ignored.
********************************
9.10 Players must not approach within 5 metres of an opponent receiving a falling raised ball until it has been received, controlled and is on the ground.
The initial receiver has a right to the ball. If it is not clear which player is the initial receiver, the player of the team which raised the ball must allow the opponent to receive it.
This Rule which prohibits approaching a player receiving a ‘falling raised ball’ neglects to mention dangerous playing of the ball at all or even describe what is meant by a ‘falling raised ball’ – all balls which are raised in any degree will fall to ground.
‘In practice’ a ball which has been raised high enough to be considered ‘falling’ in a way that may lead to dangerous play, is typically one that has been raised (considerably) above head height at the apex of its flight, and generally, it will have been propelled between 15m and 70m in a horizontal direction, but could just go straight up and down again, without significant horizontal travel, as rebounds or deflections sometimes do. The stroke most commonly used to raise the ball over long distances at heights above head height is referred to as a scoop stroke and the ball itself as an ‘aerial ball’ ( a term that has never been used in any rulebook).
There are two ways in which a player ‘throwing’ an aerial ball may endanger opponents. The first to to play the aerial ball in such a way as it is raised that an opponent is obliged to take evasive action (this could better be put ‘forced to self-defence’) – the endangered player would normally have to be within 5m and not attempting to play the ball intentionally with the body (which means he or she should be attempting to play the ball with the stick) to be considered endangered. Exceptions might be when the player hit, was a player from the same team as the player propelling the ball, who was not watching the ball as it was raised or an opposition player who was unsighted as the ball was raised, perhaps by another player moving in front of him.
Endangerment from the drag-flick shot at the goal, which is a specialized development of the scoop used as a shot at a penalty corner, is frequently the result of either accidental (own side) or deliberate (opposition) sight blocking – sometimes its a combination of the two, when the flicker deliberately uses the body of an out-runner as a means to shield sight of the ball and the path of the shot from the players positioned behind the out-runner- often endangering both the out-runner and (if the out-runner evades the ball) the player positioned behind him. That is how Geoff Irwin of Cookstown, who was positioned on the goal-line, had his skull fractured in a EHL game last season: he didn’t see the ball before it hit him.
The second way the scoop may endanger is if it is ‘thrown’ so that it will land in an area where opposing players are already positioned within 5m of each other, most commonly when the contesting players are side on to each other and the ball is falling between them rather than well wide to one side of them (which is unlikely to be dangerous in itself or to lead to dangerous play). In such situations the scooper has created a potentially dangerous situation – that is play that leads to dangerous play – (I preferred the previous wording “play likely to lead to dangerous play” because the danger need not actually occur for the scoop to be penalised, the umpire intervening at the right moment to prevent dangerous play developing ). Where the ball is falling into a contested area the umpire can wait to allow the players of the same team as the scooper to retreat and give room to the the opposition receiver (in which case there is no need to penalise the aerial), but must intervene and penalise the player who lifted the ball, if the same team player fail to give the required 5m space. In these circumstances there has been no encroachment offence (or if there is further encroachment it is irrelevant) as the opposing players were already too close when the ball was raised, so the lifter of the ball has played it dangerously, if there is retreat by the same team players in the area in which the ball is falling there is no need to stop the game to penalise the lifter’s offence – timing of the whistle is critical to safe outcome and game flow – but better too soon than too late.
An encroachment offence following an aerial pass occurs when the aerial is played into clear space or to an individual receiver in space and then after the ball is in the air but before the ball has been controlled to ground opponent/s close to challenge for the ball.
With the introduction of the Direct-Lift from a Free-ball, especially as it coincides with the introduction of the Own Goal, the use of an aerial from outside the 23m area directly into the circle may (probably will) lead to some dangerous situations. The suggestion that the Direct-Lift be not permitted directly into the circle has been ignored (which is strange when no propelling of the ball into the circle is allowed at all from a Free awarded within the 23m area). The scoop into the circle in open play will not be anything like the same as the scoop used in a set-piece – just as the result of a drag-flick at a penalty corner is not much like the use of a scoop in open play.
Because the specialist scoop shot called the drag-flick is a shot at the goal the endangerment of players moving to close down on the shot and attempting to block/intercept it with their sticks seems to be completely overlooked (for reasons which are entirely unclear, it is the defenders rather than the flicker who are the more likely to be penalised if a defender is hit with the ball – even at well above knee height- in such circumstances) and nor, irrationally, do defenders defending rising shots made to above head height get the same clear space protection as those fielding a falling ball, especially in the outfield – senior umpires have even declared (Dunn) that the space requirement for a falling ball does not apply when a lob or scoop shot is made at the goal because “aerial Rules do not apply to shots at goal” (which is contradicted by Gawley).
***************************************
Rule 9.11 Field players must not stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their body.
It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player. The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball or if they position themselves with the intention of stoppingthe ball in this way.
(From Rule 9.9) A defender who is clearly running into the shot or into the taker without attempting to play the ball with their stick must be penalised for dangerous play. (irresponsible or reckless play – “Players are expected to act responsibly at all times.”
It is not an offence if the ball hits the hand holding the stick but would otherwise have hit the stick.
Rule 9.11. has been included in this article about the dangerous propelling of the ball because guidance from another Rule on the propelling of the ball contained a Guidance clause which properly belongs in this Rule. In passing it is worth mentioning again that the restoration of the word ‘intentionally’ to Rule 9.11, so that it reads : Field players must not intentionally stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their body. would do away with the need for :- It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player. The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball…
The following clause which is tacked onto that :- ….or if they position themselves with the intention of stoppingthe ball in this way. is a complete mystery. I have no idea what it means and have never met anyone who could satisfactorily explain it.
Is it the positioning that is the offence? If so, why does an umpire permit such positioning, at a penalty corner for example? Is it the prior intention of stopping the ball with hand, foot or body that is the offence? If so, how is such intention determined if the defender is 10m – 15m from the shooter and has no certainty about the direction and height at which the ball will be propelled? The only sensible explanation I can come up with is that this clause was intended to prevent/penalise breaking down of play with the body from short range i.e. from within playing distance of the ball: actions such as falling across the path of a ball holder, effectively ‘tackling’ with the body – which is obviously potentially dangerous to opponents and irresponsibly reckless.
In passing it is necessary to point out yet again that there is no ‘gains benefit’ clause to give exception to the first clause of the present guidance, so if a player unintentionally or unavoidably makes a foot/ball contact that prevents the ball going into the goal there is still no offence: that situation needs to be addressed. Provided there has been no prior dangerous play or forcing of contact by attackers, a penalty stroke is just in such circumstances. I am, however, very much opposed to a reintroduction of the ‘catch all’ gains benefit, where any contact made was (and still is) seen as of benefit and penalised accordingly, that just made a nonsense of the Rule: the sort of nonsense that is still being made of : -The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball
Procedure for Penalty Corner
k. if the first shot at goal is a hit (as opposed to a push, flick or scoop), the ball must cross the goal-line, or be on a path which would have resulted in it crossing the goal-line, at a height of not more than 460 mm (the height of the backboard) before any deflection, for a goal to be scored.
The requirements of this Rule apply even if the ball touches the stick or body of a defender before the first shot at goal. If the first shot at goal is a hit and the ball is, or will be, too high crossing the goal-line it must be penalised even if the ball is subsequently deflected off the stick or body of another player.
The ball may be higher than 460 mm during its flight before it crosses the goal-line provided there is no danger and provided it would drop of its own accord below 460 mm before crossing the line.
l. for second and subsequent hits at the goal and for flicks, deflections and scoops, it is permitted to raise the ball to any height but this must not be dangerous.
if a defender is within five metres of the first shot at goal during the taking of a penalty corner and is struck by the ball below the knee, another penalty corner must be awarded or is struck on or above the knee in a normal stance, the shot is judged to be dangerous and a free hit must be awarded to the defending team.
The height restriction on a first hit shot at a penalty corner is there for reasons of player safety, but even so the FIH HRB (now the FIH Rules Committee) do not say straight out that a hit shot raised to pass over the goal-line at above 460mm is dangerous play, but only that a goal cannot be scored with such a shot, and it should be penalised – but for what penalised if not dangerous play? Non-compliance with objective criteria for the scoring of a goal? That is not an offence any more than hitting the ball at the goal from outside the circle is.
The ‘holy cow’ is the shot at the goal, some get apoplectic at the suggestion that any shot at the goal be considered dangerous to defenders “Who have put themselves in the way” etc. etc. (as if defending the goal by positioning in front of it, the only place from which it can be defended, was an illicit action). The term ‘legitimate evasive action’ would never have been coined if evasive action could not be legitimate (which means the defender was legitimately positioned in the first instance) and if such evasion did not describe a dangerously played ball. Where there is no defender to be endangered there can be no dangerously played ball. The very existence of the term ‘dangerously played ball’ means it is possible to endanger a player by propelling the ball (at them). There is no exclusion of the goal from ‘dangerously played ball’. It wouldn’t make much sense if there were, probably in excess of 90% of the balls that are played in a way that could be described as dangerous to others, are shots at the goal. Far fewer shots at goal are penalised than should be. Why? Firstly, because it is legal to raise the ball to any height with a hit at the goal and there is an (encouraged) perception that defenders cause danger to themselves by their defensive positioning, and that shooters are not responsible for the consequences of high shots made towards defenders positioned between them and the goal. Naturally these notions are not to be found anywhere in writing in any FIH issued document, but ‘in practice’ that is how it plays out.
The principal reason things are viewed that way is because “a dangerously played ball” is (in theory) an almost entirely subjectively determined judgement made by an umpire. In fact, in order to achieve consistency between umpires particularly at FIH Tournament level, umpires follow briefing instructions and do not make case by case judgements about such matters as ball/body contact by defenders in the circle – defenders are routinely ‘automatically’ penalised for any such contact. One has only to listen to the question and answer about a foot contact by a defender in the circle during a video referral to remove all doubt on this point – there is never a question about the intent of the player making contact with the ball, just “Was there any contact?”. In a short time players come to expect this automatic penalising of any ball/body contact, even to demand it and to play to obtain (force) such contacts by opponents in the circle. This became so much the practice that having a Rule that stated that forcing ball/foot contact was an offence became an embarrassment and a way was found to delete it (while pretending only to transfer such forcing to “other Rules”). Technically even the forcing of self-defence ceased to exist as an offence and was, presumably, transferred to the dangerous play Rule. Not a ‘big deal’ it might be said, except that the forcing of self-defence is a far better description of the dangerous played ball than ‘legitimate evasive action’ and not long ago was central to thinking about safety and the control of the raised ball. (see John Gawley’s The Lifted Ball Umpire Coaching document).
That coaching document, first written in 2001, is laughed at now (except the bits that have been ‘cherry picked’ for compliance with current ‘thinking’) not because of the conflict in its content (it is very conflicted) but because it has not been revised since 2005, but a dangerously played ball has been defined as one that “causes legitimate evasive action by players” at least as far back as the earliest rulebook I possess, which is for the year 1976.
Revision of the definition of ‘a dangerously played ball’ is long overdue, but the FIH Rules Committee have not yet got around to noticing the existence of the drag-flick as a shooting stroke at a penalty corner and seem at present more concerned with changing the descriptions of the way the pitch marking are measured – not the actual measurements just the descriptions of those measurements – and other similar vital concerns.
Most of the following suggestion was first made about twelve years ago, but as no-one else has offered an alternative, I repeat it and add to it, for completeness, clauses to cover the aerial ball.
A dangerously played ball ( meets the objective criteria below and) is a ball propelled in such a way that it forces a player to self-defence or hits that player despite an attempt to evade the ball or to play at it with the stick. .
A player who is hit may have been unable to take defensive action either because of the distance from which the ball was propelled and/or velocity of the ball or because the player was impeded or was unaware that he or she was endangered, being unsighted or unable to track the ball at the critical moments.
Objective criteria:- The ball
a) is propelled at a player, (A ball passing the side of the head within the shoulder width of the player will be considered ‘at’). and
b) is traveling at above the elbow height of the player (The player standing in a normal upright playing stance) and
c) has been propelled at a velocity that forces self defence to avoid injury.
A subjective judgement because actual speed cannot reliably be determined by eye but an objective one also because the velocity of a ball raised with a flick is comparable with the (seen and remembered) velocity of a ball that was raised with a hit. The velocity at which injury is probable when the ball is at the head or throat of a player is modest. That a ball will, if not defended or evaded, hit a player in either area at all is sufficient evidence of endangerment. Players are unlikely to be incapacitated by hits to the chest area from a ball traveling at less than 50kph, but it is not the intention that umpires should be looking for reasons not to penalise the playing of the ball at an other player at above elbow height – but the opposite – a ball at that height that forces self-defence should be penalised unless there is good reason not to penalise. A ball that is losing velocity and falling as it reaches the defender may often be considered safe enough to be coped with, but if it is rising and/or has sufficient momentum to carry it around 10m beyond the defending player it should be considered dangerous to that player.
d) has been propelled from less than 20m of the endangered player.
The possibility of a drag-flick into the circle in open play becomes a realistic tactical possibility with the introduction of the Own Goal, so this distance – which was initially 15m – is increased to 20m to cope with that possibility.
e) Any ball propelled at a player within 3m at above knee height will be considered dangerous play, irrespective of ball velocity.
Circumstances and therefore criteria change when a player is not standing and facing the ball in a normal playing stance e.g when a player has fallen or has been tripped, umpire judgement of endangerment is required when a player is on the ground.
Aerial ball:
A ball may also be considered to be played dangerously if it is raised to above head height with a scoop or scoop-like stroke and has been directed so as to land between players within 5m of each other who are likely to compete for possession of it before it hits the ground.
Even when players are positioned close to each other a ball directed to land well to one side, especially on the flanks and towards the sideline outside the players, will generally not be considered dangerously played.
Where the ball is lofted over a defender to an attacker who is 2m or more the defender’s goal side of the defender the ball will be considered to have been played into clear space and therefore not dangerously.
An aerial ball may be stopped and taken to ground by defenders in their own circle and by any player in all other parts of the field – excepting attackers in the opponent’s circle – always provided that there is no opponent within 5m of the player playing the ball in this way.
Hitting or deflecting away of a ball at any height above shoulder height is prohibited as dangerous play.
General open play.
Raising the ball into the circle with a hit is prohibited.
(The current ban on playing a free-ball awarded in the opponents 23m area, directly into the circle should be withdrawn)
Raising the ball directly into the circle with a Direct Lift is prohibited
Bouncing the ball into the circle with a Direct lift will need to be judged on its apparent dangers but should be discouraged.
(presently permitted)
Penalty Corner.
If the first shot at goal is a hit it is limited to 460mm as it crosses the goal-line. Any first hit shot which will obviously not cross the goal-line below this height to be penalised as dangerous immediate that is apparent
If the first shot at goal is a flick it is not height limited but the dangerously played ball criteria must be strictly applied. In particular the ball must not be propelled at any player at above elbow height.
Goal to be marked at 120cms with a 50mm tape from goal post to goal post around the back of the goal
The automatic penalising of a player with another penalty corner after being hit below the knee with a shot at goal during a penalty corner should be withdrawn, it is unjustified, unfair and encourages intimidation by means of hard raised hits into the legs of defenders. The possibility now also exists that such a hit could be made first time from outside the circle into the legs of defenders and result in a deflected ‘own goal’ – this tactical possibility increases the potential for the dangerous playing of a hit and of the hit that results directly in danger from high deflections.
Summary
Apart form the aerial pass, a dangerously played ball is a ball that has been propelled at a player at above elbow height (120cm for senior men) from within 20m. at a velocity that will force self defence to avoid injury.
The order in which most of criteria are presented does not matter, the critical one however, and therefore the first, is at a player. It does not matter how high the ball is propelled or at what velocity or from which distance – if it is not at a player it cannot force either evasion or any other sort of self defence and therefore will not be dangerous.
For the aerial ball from the Direct Lift in particular, it is the proximity of opposing players to the chosen landing point and what the same team players do (or do not do) which will determine whether or not the lofted pass will be considered dangerous at point of lift. In open play the scoop can be dangerous to opponents in exactly the same way as the lifted ball described above and may also be dangerous play if lofted to land among opposing player who were within 5m at the time the ball was raised – and the same team players fail to retreat 5m from the landing point.
Now that the Direct Lift has become a Mandatory Experiment in field hockey this article has additional relevance.
“We simply can’t hold up the evolution of the game because of our outdated and stubborn understandings of what may possibly become dangerous.”
The above statement is a quote from a umpire who posted on an Internet hockey forum during a discussion about umpire positioning and shared responsibilities between umpires when a scoop stroke (aerial pass) was made, and also the position from which any free awarded for dangerous play should be taken. I agree that the game should be allowed evolve tactically but I do not agree that our understanding of potentially dangerous actions is outdated. I do think the current Rules and Rule Guidance are inadequate – but they (sic) always have been.
The wording of the Rule did not change greatly the last time it was amended in 2004 when the rulebook was reformatted; since that date it had been:-
9.10 Players must not approach within 5 metres of an opponent receiving a falling raised ball until it has been received, controlled and is on the ground.
The initial receiver has a right to the ball. If it is not clear which player is the initial receiver, the player of the team which raised the ball must allow the opponent to receive it.
There is no mention of danger in either the Rule or the Rule Guidance; to find that it is necessary to go back to a time when there was a separate section called Interpretation in the back of the rulebook – and even then the nature of the danger is not identified. At that time all actions concerning the lifting of the ball were dealt with under one Rule which had a number of clauses. The relevant ones were:-
13.1.3 Raised ball
A player shall not:
c. approach within 5 metres of a player receiving a falling raised ball until it has been played and is on the ground
d. raise the ball at another player.
. The relevant clause (c) is identical to the current Rule. The (much reduced) Rule Guidance is taken from the previous Interpretation – which is here considerably shortened for brevity – leaving out raising the ball 1) over a prone opponent, 2) off a goalkeeper’s pads, 3) into the circle, 4) the flick shot at penalty corner etc.
Interpretation scoop The ball raised over a distance using a flick or scoop action must be judged for actual or potential danger: - where the ball is played - during flight - where the ball lands. The offence should be penalised where the danger occurs, not necessarily where the ball was originally played: - when the danger occurs where the ball was played, the penalty must be taken there; - when the danger occurs during the flight of the ball, the penalty should be taken from where the ball was originally played; - when a player of either team behaves in a dangerous manner in the area of the flight of the ball, the penalty must be applied where the player is positioned; - when the danger occurs where the ball lands, the penalty must be taken there.
Any flick or scoop made with an oncoming opponent within 5 metres is almost certainly dangerous and should be penalised.
The raised ball which is played into open space or to alone player should not be penalised unless dangerous.
Receiving player A player receiving a raised ball must be given the opportunity to play it safely. If a player flicks or scoops the ball safely into free space and another player of the same team and an opponent reach the area where the ball will land at the same time, then the player of the team which played the ball shall give the opponent time and space to bring the ball under control.
Defenders do not have a right to the ball if an attacker is the initial receiver.
If the receiving player is clear of other players at the time the ball is raised, no players of the opposing team should approach within 5 metres until the ball has been received, controlled and is on the ground.
**************************
The last clause above, which I will come back to, and these three cause some difficulty:-
- when the danger occurs during the flight of the ball, the penalty should be taken from where the ball was originally played;
There appears to be conflict between that statement and these two:-
- when a player of either team behaves in a dangerous manner in the area of the flight of the ball, the penalty must be applied where the player is positioned;
- when the danger occurs where the ball lands, the penalty must be taken there.
but it may be resolved by considering danger caused by the player who raised the ball and then danger caused by other players.
Any player other than the player who raised the ball who attempted to play at a ball above shoulder height would have been guilty of an offence so it is only necessary (in the absence of dangerous play by others) to consider what would have been dangerous play by the player who raised the ball. We are given one instance – raising the ball at a player was against the Rules and certainly dangerous play if the other player was within 5m. ‘Considered dangerous’ is still the case if the ball is raised at a player within 5m (see Guidance to Rule 9.9) – so that understanding is not ‘outdated’.
The other potential cause of dangerous play (we can deduce from the text If the receiving player is clear of other players at the time the ball is raised) was to raise the ball into an area where opposing players were already within 5m of each other and likely to contest for the ball, which brings us back to this:-
If the receiving player is clear of other players at the time the ball is raised, no players of the opposing team should approach within 5 metres until the ball has been received, controlled and is on the ground.
Umpires reasoned (were told) that if a player scooped the ball to land among player who were already closer than 5m at the time the ball was raised the player who raised the ball was playing the ball in a way that was likely to lead to dangerous play – so they penalised when the ball was still in flight and took the ball back to the place from which it was raised, which concurs with this:-
- when the danger occurs during the flight of the ball, the penalty should be taken from where the ball was originally played;
There are however some problems with this approach. If the ball is scooped towards players who may contest for it and the players from the same team as the scooper move away from the opposing receiving player and allow her/him to receive the ball without interference, there is no danger, no disadvantage (other than a loss of ‘ground’) and so no reason to interrupt the game to penalise. It is therefore incorrect to penalise the offence (play leading to dangerous play) immediately the ball is scooped up so that it may land among contesting players – which is what was common umpiring practice some years ago complying with the previous “at the time the ball was raised“. and “likely to lead to dangerous play“
The umpire needs to wait to see if the players close to the opposing receiver (when the fact is identified) respond by allowing that receiver sufficient time and space. (This is a personal interpretation because the Rule only forbids approach and does not demand retreat if opposing players are already within 5m – something the FIH Rules Committee could take a look at).
There may however come a point in time, in the flight of the falling ball, when it will be clear that the receiver has not been given sufficient space and there is no longer time for opponents to move away. This time must be when the ball is still beyond the stick playing distance of players in the landing zone, because to leave a decision any longer could be to allow a potentially dangerous situation to become actually dangerous, and it is no good to expect or hope that players will ‘be sensible’ (they have not after all had the sense to move away earlier while the ball was in flight) and not swing at the ball while it is still in the air. The whistle needs to be blown early enough so that players have time to hear it and respond to it before they attempt to play at the falling ball – so probably when the ball is still at least 5m off the ground. The umpire is then still ‘blowing’ according to this in the previous version of the Rule:-
- when the danger occurs during the flight of the ball, the penalty should be taken from where the ball was originally played;
but could also applying this -
- when a player of either team behaves in a dangerous manner in the area of the flight of the ball, the penalty must be applied where the player is positioned;.
that position could be where the ball is landing (rather than where it landed) - when the danger occurs where the ball lands, the penalty must be taken there.(which would be too late to avert dangerous play if there were contesting players beneath a falling ball) It not difficult to see why all these clauses were removed completely, but amendment would probably have been the better option.
Not penalising immediately the ball is raised but only when the potential danger (compounded by failure to retreat) becomes highly likely or inevitable, is a matter of timing. This whole issue is about the timing of the blowing of the whistle as potential danger is seen as the ball is coming down. The umpire should allow players in the landing zone time to comply to the 5m requirement but should not delay too much and allow potential danger to become actual danger.
The incident in the clip below followed an accidental deflection of a hit up off the stick of a defending player – not a intentional scoop into the circle – but it gives an idea of the kind of problems which may (almost inevitably will) arise from the Direct Lift of a free into the circle. Not intervening in good time, changed what could have been a bully or perhaps the award of a free to the attack outside the 23m area into what should have been a penalty stroke for the GB team. (The decision in the match, after a video referral, requested by the Pakistan team, was a free to Pakistan because the England player – clearly the initial receiver – hit the ball at above his shoulder height. The encroaching offence by the defender was overlooked).
An appreciation of the dangers of having players competing for the ball falling onto them from above head height is not an ‘outdated and stubborn understanding of what may possibly become dangerous‘, what has become outdated, and has never been clearly explained, is the need for correct timing of intervention and application of penalty.
The first approach outlined above – when the danger occurs during the flight of the ball, the penalty should be taken from where the ball was originally played; does not satisfy the present common approach, in which danger, once the ball has been raised safely and is in flight, is penalised with a free at the place it occurred, generally where the ball is landing, rather than where it was initially caused (by lifting the ball into a contested area) but I think the present approach to be flawed.
The flaw I see in the current approach is that there is nothing to deter players from scooping the ball into crowded areas and creating potentially dangerous situations, which they then rely on others to rectify- the lifter of the ball has in this case no responsibility for his choice of target (landing) area . Coupled with this is the very lax attitude that has developed to the distance required and to the time allowed to receivers to control the ball to ground (both Rule requirements which could be looked at afresh to ‘evolve’ the game – develop it tactically). The combination of these factors gives a decided advantage, I think an unfair advantage, to teams who use this tactic to gain ground and ‘overload’ the ball at the site of the awarded free – encroaching to within 5m of receiver while the ball is still in the air is a deliberate tactic and the award of a free is not a deterrent , not in fact a penalty, it is the minimum aim of such tactics. (Greater advantage can be gained if the defending receiver ‘fluffs’ the attempt to control the ball to ground, especially if he deflects it into the path of a closing or wide opponent).
There are several possible receiving/contesting scenarios when a ball is scooped over a long distance, in the majority of them, if there is a dangerous play offence, the free should be taken at or close to where the ball was landing, but where the ball is flighted to land in an already contested area, then the action of the player who raises the ball is the initial cause of potential danger, “play leading to dangerous play” (or the preferable “play likely to lead to dangerous play”) ; players on the lifter’s team who close on the receiver or do not give space are a secondary or compounding factor (and commit a second offence). I believe that in these circumstances a free ought to be awarded where the ball was raised, the first offence being penalised first. Nothing in the Rules of Hockey contradicts this view but nothing now supports it (as previously was the case): “simplification and clarification” have led to a lack of clear guidance.
***********************************
A different issue.
This:- when a player of either team behaves in a dangerous manner in the area of the flight of the ball, the penalty must be applied where the player is positioned;
It is understandable that a player who is positioned in clear space, more than 5m from opponents or opponent’s goal side of opponents and on the run towards the goal, is upset to be penalised for playing at the ball above shoulder height in order to control it into possession. It’s an offence, but why? The disadvantage to opponents is clear, but there is no element of danger in such action and the game would be improved by allowing such play. For safety a line has to be drawn at close players contesting for the ball while it is in the air above shoulder height, but unnecessary restrictions should be removed.
Two areas to sort out: the timing of the whistle when a ball is falling into a contested area and the unnecessary penalising of players who take the ball down safely from above shoulder height in clear space – the latter could be said to penalised unnecessarily at present because of “a stubborn and outdated understanding of what may possibly become dangerous” but that is not syntax I would use.
I always included the suggestion when advocating the Direct Lift that the opponent’s circle should be excluded as a target area because of the possibility of attempts by attackers to volley the ball towards the goal. The addition of the facility to lift the ball directly from a free awarded outside the opposing 23m area to land in the circle, which is now part of a Mandatory Experiment, will I believe lead to ‘interesting’ ramifications. We shall no doubt shortly see.
This is a clip from an EHL game, where controlling the ball to ground from above shoulder height is being experimented with. The umpire awarded a goal from this shot but I think that this type of play should not be acceptable in any level of the game.
Here again (below) there is a timing issue. A goal cannot be awarded because the German player played the ball from above his shoulder height – but prior to that he was illegally encroached upon by two, possibly three, Australian players, before the ball was controlled to ground. The umpire should have been considering the award of a penalty stroke for the encroaching of the goalkeeper or a penalty corner for the encroaching of the Australian player closing from behind (who was within 5m of the receiving player before the ball was in the circle). The umpire was possibly trying to play advantage but in a strongly contested situation, where the alternative was a probable penalty stroke and danger was likely (in the ‘still’ below the German player has yet to play the ball), that was probably the wrong thing to do.
During the Olympic preliminary round field hockey match between Australia and South Africa on 30th July the commentator said this:-
That has of course been the case for at least the last fifty years and until January 2011 it was an offence to deliberately play the ball into an opponent with the intention of forcing a breach of Rule.
Ironically the offence of ‘forcing’ is no longer in existence, the FIH Rules Committee having decided it was not necessary because the various forced breaches could be dealt with under other Rules. But it is not clear, in the absence of dangerous play, what other Rule would be used to deal with a forced foot/ball contact.
What is still true is that a forced foot/ball contact is not an offence by the player hit because only such contacts as are made voluntarily are offences, and a forced contact, by definition, is not a voluntary contact. At present therefore a player in possession of the ball can force a foot/ball contact onto an opponent without penalty (provided the play is not dangerous) but the player hit has not committed an offence either and, other things being equal, play should continue.
Regrettably this is still not happening, forced as well as accidental foot/ball contacts are still being penalised and this commentator, among others, still talks about ‘finding a foot’ to ‘win’ a penalty.
The first goal in the game came after an interesting decision. Dywer flicked the ball at very close range up into the body of a defender positioned in the goal (and hurt him). The umpire awarded a penalty stoke. Until the deletion of the ‘gains benefit’ clause that might have been justifiable despite what was very obviously dangerous play (it fitted the criteria set out – above knee height and from within 5m – a shot at the goal is not exempt from the Dangerous Play Rule). There is now however only one reason to penalise a defender in the goal (or anywhere else) hit with the ball. A shot that was not dangerous but played into the body of a defender can result in penalty against the defender only if the defender voluntarily used the body to play the ball (i.e. from choice made no attempt to play the ball with the stick) and the umpire needs to be certain that the use of the body was not forced (unavoidable) or not accidental. The defender on this occasion had no opportunity at all to avoid the ball and so the dangerously raised ball was the first offence.
The accidental direct prevention of a goal with part of the body should be penalised as an unfair benefit gained (provided there has been no prior dangerous play) for fairness and also to discourage reckless defending, the gained benefit clause needs to be restored to deal with that circumstance, to allow fair decisions when a goal is directly prevented with an unavoidable or accidental ball/body contact. I am not in favour of the reintroduction of ‘gained benefit’ (or the substituted ’disadvantaged opponents’) in other circumstances – except perhaps a ball/body contact by a player who is already in possession of the ball – because it has previously been widely used as a ‘catch all’ which inverted the intent of the Rule.
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.
.
h. from a free hit awarded to the attack within the 23 metres area, the ball must not be played into the circle until it has travelled at least 5 metres or has been touched by a player of either team other than the player taking the free hit.
Is this because a free hit is inherently dangerous or because direct hits into the circle in open play – no matter how made – are not dangerous?
The attacker in the clip below deliberately breaches two Rules when playing the ball into the circle.
1) Use of forehand edge when hitting the ball hard.
2) Intentionally raising the ball with a hit.
Both offences are ignored (or not seen) by the umpire – and that, although clearly incorrect, is obviously what the players expected.
There is a probably a third offence. I think raising the ball into a group of players from opposing sides who are positioned in front of the goal to be play likely to lead to dangerous play (the previous wording of the dangerously played ball Rule) – now that the wording is “leads to dangerous play” the judgement “likely to” has been removed. This begs the question “What would be considered a dangerously raised ball in these circumstances?”
It would make far more sense to allow a free awarded in the 23m area to be played directly into the circle but to prohibit any raising of the ball into the circle with a hit – accidental or not – and also to prohibit an above knee height deflection of the ball into the circle off the stick of an attacker. Treating an open play raised ball differently to one played from a free awarded in the opposition’s 23m area – for safety reasons – is absurd when there is such a cavalier attitude to obvious and potentially dangerous breaches of Rule in open play.
Why has this been allowed to happen – for consistency, common sense, because ” It is what the FIH wants” ? (Which is obviously not the case as it conflicts with the Rules of Hockey provided by the FIH)
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
Rule 9.2 Players on the field must hold their stick and not use it in a dangerous way.
Players must not lift their stick over the heads of other players.
The following was the version extant until 1984- no subjective judgement at all – if any part of the stick was above the shoulder in the play described an offence had occurred.
Rule 12. 1. e) A player must not raise any part of his stick above his shoulder, either at the beginning or at the end of a stroke, when approaching, attempting to play, playing the ball, or stopping the ball.
From 1995 to 2004, (when the current Rule was introduced), the Rule read:-
Players shall not: 13.1.1 Use of stick and playing equipment a. play the ball intentionally with the back of the stick b. take part in or interfere with the game unless they have their sticks in their hand c. play the ball above shoulder height with any part of their sticks d. lift their sticks over the heads of players e. use their sticks in a manner that is dangerous, intimidating or hampering f. play the ball dangerously or in such a way as to be likely to lead to dangerous play.
The emphasis had moved from raising any part of the stick above the shoulder to the playing of the ball (but not, oddly, attempting to play the ball) at above shoulder height. Now of course a defender is allowed to play an on target shot at the goal that is above shoulder height – and there is pressure to further ease restriction on such the playing of the ball.
That’s fine except for one thing, ‘dangerous’ remains a subjective judgement. This is not a serious problem when dealing with the playing of an aerial ball at above shoulder height because there is an encroachment Rule which should keep a player likely to contest for a falling ball at least 5m away until the ball is on the ground. But in moving the focus to the playing of the ball at above shoulder height it has been moved from other dangerous use of the stick. I can’t recall the last time I saw a player penalised for using the stick in a dangerous or illegal way other than while playing the ball at above shoulder height when an aerial pass had been made.
Prior to 1984 players could be penalised for just approaching a ball on the ground while raising their stick above their shoulder, even if there was no opponent anywhere near them: so players had to learn how to hit the ball without raising the stick head with a high back-swing or high follow-through. As a consequence there were very few head/face injuries from stick contacts and those that did occur were almost always caused as a result of a tackler coming in to tackle with their head low – usually on the blind-side of a striker.
It must have been considered silly to penalise a player for using a high stick when there was no opponent close enough to be injured with the swinging stick, and so it was, but in changing what was permitted and introducing ‘dangerous use’ as the sole criteria, the ‘baby was thrown out with the bath water’, because there was no guidance given as to what constituted ‘dangerous use’, other than lifting the stick over (from one side to the other) the head of an opponent. Because there is no guidance about other possible ‘dangerous use’ it seems to be assumed there cannot be any. (This is similar to the assumption, made by many participants, that because it is dangerous play to raise the ball at above knee height at an opponent who is within 5m, it cannot be dangerous play to similarly raise the ball at a player who is more than 5m away; that is obviously a flawed conclusion when a ball may be propelled at close to 100mph).
The long term result of this decrease in awareness of danger from the use of the stick has been that players no longer commonly use a low stick-swing to hit the ball and the number of head/face injuries caused by contact with the hockey stick has risen dramatically since the mid 1980′s, hence the call for goggles and helmets particularly in American High School games.
Here is an example of dangerous use of the stick at a much higher level:-
I originally posted this clip in connection with obstruction, but obviously if there was no high back-swing of the stick – previously an offence, even with no opponent within the swing arc of the stick – there would have been no injury to the player attempting to position to tackle. Incomprehensibly the umpire awarded a free to the Spanish player – but it probably is against the Rules to play at an opponent’s stick with the face even if that player has obstructed the path to the ball.
Here is a more recent example from the Olympic Test Event:-
Most umpires would I think have stopped play as soon as the ball deflected up from the goal-keeper to above head height – it was obviously going to fall among players who would contest for it. I have no idea why this umpire was giving a ‘play on’ signal. If umpires do not intervene in such circumstances sooner or later there will be a serious head/face injury.
Obviously leaving this sort of thing to subjective judgement does not always work as it should and thought needs to be given to prohibiting the raising of any part of the stick above the shoulder when there is an opponent within stick distance.
.
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
I would like to make some observations about a Internet field hockey forum post :- (which is now pinned to the top of the Umpiring Section of that forum as an example of moderation in debate)
But first, here it is as written in full.
Dangerous shot on goal.
Every internet forum has had these debates, and the strong opinions have led to a deal of nastiness.
There are two extreme positions: – if it is a shot, it cannot be dangerous (any danger is the defender’s fault for being there); – the danger rules are being ignored, with too many dangerous shots allowed as goals, or injured defenders penalised with a PS.
On the occasions when the flame wars have subsidied enough to let reasonable contributors reach a consensus, that consensus has been:
- it all depends on the shot, the speed and distances involved, the skill-level of defenders and attacker, the state of play, the importance of the competition, and many other factors known only to those who were there… – at the highest levels of hockey, very little is judged as dangerous, on the assumption that defenders have the skill to take on almost any shot – … but umpires might still follow the guidance to Rules 9.9 and 13.3L, that a shot striking someone within 5 metres above the knee, can be considered dangerous – at beginning and social levels of hockey, inexperienced players must not be left feeling unsafe, and wild shots should be penalised to encourage attackers to care for safety – … so umpires can reasonably extend the ‘within 5′ to 7, 10, or even 14, and sometimes rule it ‘dangerous’ even if the ball misses everyone – at the majority of hockey in-between, it is back to the umpire’s judgement, based on experience, what they’ve read on the Internet, and discussions in the bar – … so after a game with such a decision, you’ll have this debate with a fellow umpire and a couple of other players .
******************************
I seems to be entirely reasonable doesn’t it? In fact it is a quite skilfully put together mix of truth, opinion, falsehood and contradiction, which ends with a picture of umpires and players happily chatting at the bar, an image that provides the necessary ‘feel good’ factor and general agreement of ‘everyone’ the author wants to impart.
A second look.
Every internet forum has had these debates, and the strong opinions have led to a deal of nastiness.
True, I have been on the receiving end of a great deal of this ‘nastiness’.
There are two extreme positions:
This is an extreme position.
- if it is a shot, it cannot be dangerous (any danger is the defender’s fault for being there);
An example from the 2010 WWC
The following statement is not an extreme position, it is the truth.
- the danger rules are being ignored, with too many dangerous shots allowed as goals, or injured defenders penalised with a PS.
Penalty stoke awarded
This one was ‘only’ a penalty corner. I have no idea what offence the defender was supposed to have committed.
The following sentence give the impression that reasonable contributors hold neither of the views given above – false – and that there is a consensus of opinion among reasonable people, (which by definition excludes those who hold the given ‘extreme’ views ) – this too is a false statement. On the occasions when the flame wars have subsided enough to let reasonable contributors reach a consensus, that consensus has been:
- it(whether or not a ball has been played dangerously) – all depends on the shot, the speed and distances involved, the skill-level of defenders and attacker, the state of play, the importance of the competition, and many other factors known only to those who were there… Nice mix, part true, part false, part irrelevant – and some parts missing. A closer examination:-
- it all depends on the shot, the speed and distances involved.That’s a promising start but it needed to be more precise. ‘It’ depends on the height of the shot, the speed (velocity) of it, the distance away from a player from which it was propelled, and, most importantly if it was at a player and forced self-defence.
-the skill-level of defenders and attacker, the state of play, the importance of the competition,All irrelevant as to whether or not a ball has been propelled in a dangerous way – has endangered a player.
- and many other factors known only to those who were there.
“the shot, the speed and distances involved” are also factors known only to those who ‘were there’. Other factors, such as obstruction, impeding, intimidation, sight-blocking, nature of stoke (forehand edge hit for example), can all be mentioned in written guidance for players and umpires, as acts that can lead to a dangerously played shot: it is not necessary to “be there” to know the kinds of actions that are prohibited and therefore should be watched for (umpire) or not intentionally carried out (players). For prevention prior knowledge of these things by players and coaches is essential – this is most consistently provided by written guidance in the issued rulebook , not after the event (of dangerous play) post-match in a bar, although such discussions can be helpful in individual cases.
- at the highest levels of hockey, very little is judged as dangerous, on the assumption that defenders have the skill to take on almost any shot. The near extreme view but only because it does not say “no shot” but “ very little” without explanation of the “very little” that is judged dangerous ( I think it is a shot that is going wide of the goal that may be judged dangerous – the same shot on target not so – a situation which I don’t understand and have been unable to obtain a logical explanation for), and the reason given is here different: no longer the outrageous “the defender’s fault for being there” which is usually offered(the defender cannot be called ‘at fault’ for attempting to defend and it is only possible to defend a shot at the goal from a position between the goal and the shooter), but the seemingly reasonable “on the assumption that defenders have the skill to take on almost any shot” ; the “almost” not expanded upon and what would be considered beyond the skill of players of the highest level not explained. Note that the attackers are not expected to have the skill to avoid propelling the ball high at a defender or to accept responsibility for doing so.
The absurdity of the assumption made about the skill of a defender can be demonstrated with an analogy:-
A motorist drives his car through a pedestrian-crossing while there is a pedestrian in his path and when prosecuted for dangerous driving defends doing so by claiming that the pedestrian, who was already on the crossing as he approached, should not have been there because he knew car drivers used the road. Not a defence. His next line is that the pedestrian knew that he was in a position where he could be hit by a car and also had or should have had the skill to jump out of the path of his car and avoid injury and was therefore responsible for his injury – caused it – : not a defence.
Here is an an example of what I consider to be the taking of legitimate evasive action at the highest level, the Gold Medal match of the Olympic Games. The umpire awarded a goal, I have no idea why; the shot was clearly made directly at the position of the ‘post player’ at about head height and endangered that player.
The prior positioning of a defender is reason not to propel the ball high (which needs defining) at that position i.e. at her/him but to take an alternative action. The positioning of a defender in front of the target goal does not indicate acceptance of an irresponsible – reckless – and/or dangerous action by an attacker, i.e. illegal actions. The defender accepts, as all players do, the possibility of injury because of accidental actions, miss-hits or deflections for example, but such accidental actions may still be penalised as dangerous.
The skill of the defender is irrelevant, what is relevant is the propensity of the ball to injure the player (any player) it is propelled at – which depends on the velocity, the height and also the distance from the player from which the ball is propelled – that in turn forces a player to self defence, either by trying to evade the ball to avoid injury or trying to play it with the stick, (success in either is irrelevant, the ball is still played at her/him in a dangerous way). The forcing of self-defence is critical in the judgement of a dangerously played ball – it actuall defines it – but it was omitted in the original post.
- … but umpires might still follow the guidance to Rules 9.9 and 13.3L, that a shot striking someone within 5 metres above the knee, can be considered dangerous
Guidance to Rule 9.9 reads “is considered dangerous” not “can be” (the FIH Rules Committee have declared such a stroke to be dangerous) and there is no height mentioned – so presumably a ball propelled at any height could be considered dangerous – it would certainly be incorrect to say that a ball propelled at a player below knee height cannot be dangerous. Nor is there any suggestion within the Rules that a player who is beyond 5m of the ball cannot be endangered by the way in which the ball is played. Guidance to 13.3.l, specific to the penalty corner, does not cancel out the guidance to Rule 9.9 – although the presence of both obviously causes some confusion.
Guidance Rule 9.9. A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous.
- at beginning and social levels of hockey, inexperienced players must not be left feeling unsafe, and wild shots should be penalised to encourage attackers to care for safety.True, the same can be said of all levels of hockey.
- … so umpires can reasonably extend the ‘within 5′ to 7, 10, or even 14, and sometimes rule it ‘dangerous’ even if the ball misses everyone.True, think, as an extreme example, of a shot taken on the volley at a falling ball near the edge of a crowded circle.
- at the majority of hockey in-between, it is back to the umpire’s judgement, based on experience, what they’ve read on the Internet, and discussions in the bar
- … so after a game with such a decision, you’ll have this debate with a fellow umpire and a couple of other players .
Note, no mention of the Rules of Hockey but in the absence of any guidance but that given to Rule 9.9., and with the definition of a dangerously played ball being “a ball that causes legitimate evasive action” , when umpires often interpret evasive action from players who are known to be skilled as an attempted ‘con’, the present rules relating to a dangerously played ball are hopelessly inadequate and players and coaches will seek explanation.
We are left with the subjective judgement of umpires, and that too is often hopelessly inadequate for the proper and fair protection of defending players facing an attacker in possession of the ball, especially when the umpire subscribes to the first of the “two extreme positions” – as many do.
Example: current FIH Umpires have stated on Internet hockey forums that defenders in front of the goal causes danger by their positioning, and position so with the intention of using their body to play the ball if they miss it with the stick. It is not known on what evidence or authority these assumptions are based. There is also absurdity in the claim: when there are two ‘post players’ positioned during a penalty corner are both of them causing danger at the same time, when they are more than 3m apart or is it only the one the ball is propelled at who is to blame?
Example of practice: The umpire in the following clip informs a defender in a match during the 2010 Women’s World Cup that an on-target shot at the goal could not be dangerous, and awarded a penalty corner against the defender (for being hit?) The shot, a raised edge hit from about 5m, struck the defender on the thigh.
Such umpires (and those who coach them) are dangerous to players because of these (extreme) views,they do nothing to discourage the dangerously played ball – in fact they encourage it. We can only speculate about what would have followed if during the penalty corner the umpire insisted on awarding, despite the ‘petulant’ protests of the Spanish players that the initial shot was dangerous, a defender had been injured, as Irewin of Cookstown was (fractured skull), in the EHL game shown above.
It is obvious that the dangerously played shot can no longer remain entirely a subjective decision – that is entirely the opinion of an umpire without reference to any objective criteria, if the ball is propelled at another player from more than 5m. - it all depends on the shot, the speed and distances involved and so it should but this statement is not acted upon, there is no means of making these judgements. It’s not difficult: when the ball is propelled high at a player we have one objective judgement “at a player”; added to that we could have a subjective judgement, but one to which the player defending can contribute, “at a velocity that could injure” – the defender then takes the decision to attempt to play or evade the ball. (Players are presently forced to attempt to play at the ball when a shot at the goal is made ‘through’ them, because evasion just leads to the award of a goal). Then we could have another objective judgement, height. I suggest “at above elbow height”; and finally, ‘distance’, another objective judgement.
Velocity and distance will together determine ‘time to react’ in a defensive way. Velocity and height will together determine the nature of the danger, the degree of injury that could be inflicted.
A high velocity ball propelled at a player at above elbow height would then be considered dangerous play – even if it was a shot at the goal from within the circle.
Within a day of my writing the above article someone on the hockey forum from which the original comment was taken, posted this:-
” There are already posts in other places discussing how this is completely untrue and unworkable and that the option they put forward is the only workable option.”
Which illustrates the problems we have with interpretation and opinion and bias. I have suggested an alternative approach: I did not say it was the only possible one or that the original post was completely untrue – but that it was false or mistaken in parts. I noted where it was true and where false.
It is this kind of biased, untruthful and irresponsible response (from an umpire who has previously declared he would award a penalty stroke against a player hit on the head while defending the goal on the goal-line) that leads to polarization of opinion instead of sensible debate and compromise – not that player safety should ever be compromised by the opinions of an umpire .
What criteria should be used to describe a dangerous shot is certainly open to further discussion: once it has been accepted that the present criteria – subjective judgement alone - is inadequate, which it obviously is if these decisions are prejudged i.e. are not in fact subjective at all, but predetermined irrespective of the facts in each case. Sensible discussion will however not take place.
The link below is to a typical example of an attempt (in 2010) to discuss dangerous play in connection shots raised at a penalty corner that hit a defender at head height. There are two examples given from the same tournament. It is clear from the replies given that a high shot going wide of the goal that hits a defender will be considered dangerous – but a shot that is on target will not be. No reasons for this difference of interpretation are offered, it just seems to be taken for granted. This suggests that umpires consider it an illegitimate action for a defender to defend the goal from in front of the goal or as they would put it “the defender accepts the risks”. But intentionally raising shot at – through – an opponent will endanger that opponent and is dangerous play, which is contrary to Rule, and so not an accepted risk. When the ball is intentionally raised at a player in a way that forces self-defence that player is entitled to expect the umpire to penalise the player who raises the ball at him.
Few Internet hockey forum threads have got much further than that one and there have probably been around fifty attempts since 2006 on that particular forum to explore the issue. Umpire coaches and senior umpires simply refuse either to engage at all or to give a reasonable answer to the questions raised. Those that do respond often do so just in order to prevent any discussion – as is the case in the example above. The respondent to the second incident mentioned in the thread was by the umpire involved (who also tried to ‘kill’ the topic with her first post). She acknowledges that she was wrong to award a penalty corner after a shot that was going wide of the goal hit a defender at head height, but there is no doubt at all that she would have awarded a penalty stroke if the shot had been ‘on target’ and the defender hit in the same way. Presumably the defender and not the attacker would have been seen in that case to have caused the dangerous play.
Following the death of Lizze Watkins, in Australia in May 2012, there was a call for provision for the wearing of helmets for field-hockey playing from a doctor in Perth, whose daughter plays hockey, reported in a newspaper article. The doctor said she saw and treated many hockey related head injuries from ball contacts. She also said she had written to the hockey authorities many time suggesting Rule change but was just ignored. An ill mannered reply was made to her reported comments from a hockey player. I am not in favour of the introduction of helmets for field players in hockey (I think they would lead to an even more cavalier attitude to dangerous play – as the introduction of face masks for penalty corners has) but I agree there needs to be rule change – so I replied to his comment pointing out the danger of the present interpretation in regard to the raised shot at goal, especially the drag-flick at a penalty corner. This is what he wrote in reply.
Martin Conlon 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.
Rules state everything goes in the D. This guy does not know the Rules and should not be allowed to play until he has demonstrated that he does. The scary thing is I have in the past received similar comments on this subject from practicing umpires, and even those coaching novice umpires: dangerously clueless people who should not be entrusted with overseeing a hockey match.
The FIH Rules Advisory Panel for field hockey was formed in 1993 and mentioned in the Preface to Rules of Hockey 1998, as a body that would oversee Rules Trials.
The Future : Over the years, the Hockey Rules Board (HRB) explored changes to the Rules through the use of Experimental Rules. We have now reached the stage when it is considered appropriate to undertake a number of Trials of possible new Rules before they are formally introduced as Mandatory Experiments. Such an approach will enable a proper evaluation of some quite radical changes.The Trials, which National Associations will be invited to undertake, will be conducted by the Rules Advisory Panel (RAP).Full details of these ideas have been sent to National Associations. If will be their decision whether the Trials take place. The main areas for consideration include the penalty corner, larger goals, direct hits into the circle from free hits, ball not being stopped before a shot at goal during the penalty corner and having a broken line 5 metresoutside the circle. Opinions on these and related activities should be sent to Roger Webb, Co-ordinator of the Rules Advisory Panel.
Where the suggested rules for trial had come from and who besides Roger Webb was involved in the RAP remained unclear, but this umpire coaching document authored by John Gawley has been confirmed by Roger Webb to reflect the thinking of the RAP .
It is the most conflicted document written about the application of the rules of hockey that I have read. It also appears, in part, to form the basis of much of the current muddled ‘interpretation’ of defensive actions and the dangerously played ball. Some statements in it are the near or direct opposite of others so it reads like a list of alternative approaches rather than a coaching document or advice to umpires.
As far as I have been able I have highlighted like statements in one colour and grouped conflicting statements in another – one group has been generally ignored the other adopted. Which is seen as ‘positive’ for the game and which ‘negative’ will depend on the predisposition of the reader.
Some of the rules and guidance mentioned in the document have since been deleted, I have indicated this in green italic within the text on the first occasion only that each such rule or guidance is referred to. My comments have also been inserted in green italic.
The document has been very selectively used by umpire coaches. The reader will recognise the parts that are current application or ‘interpretation’. The result of this selection has been the development since of some very ‘slanted’ interpretation of player actions and of the written rules and guidance – which has in turn led, it appears, to the deletion of safety rules which were previously thought to be important.
*************
The Lifted Ball
2001
By John Gawley. Level 3 Umpire Coach.
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 centimetres. (now generally ignored when the defending player is more than 5m from the ball and always ignored when a shot at goal is made)
A player having to face a ball approaching in the air should have a clear view of the full flight of that ball and also have time either to move out of its way, or to play or attempt to play it in a legitimate and safe manner.(ignored)
So far as Goalkeepers are concerned, they deliberately put themselves “into the firing line” but are equipped to do so. Nevertheless, even they can be forced into self-protection rather than protection of their goal by dangerously-raised balls. (ignored)
INTENTIONAL LIFT
- Lift at an Opponent
If the ball is intentionally put into the air at an opponent at any height anywhere on the pitch in contravention of Rule 13.1.1 f: (Rules numbers changed in subsequent years, Conduct of Play became Rule 9)
(“Players shall not play the ball dangerously or in such a way as to be likely to lead to dangerous play”) and Rule 13.1.3b (“Players shall not intentionally raise the ball so that it lands directly in the circle” ( this Rule later deleted) the player who raises the ball is in breach of the Rule.
(There was also aRule 13.1.3dA player shall not raise the ball at another playerextant in 2001, which was deleted after 2003. Gawley, strangely, neglected to mention it here)
Furthermore, the shot may be dangerous or likely to lead to danger. Such a shot may legitimately be defended by the hand in accordance with Rule 13.1.2 a. (“Players shall not stop or catch the ball with the hand. There is nothing to prevent players using their hands to protect themselves from dangerously-raised balls.” (this guidance was later deleted)) That statement stands despite the fact that Rule 13.1.3 a (“Players shall not intentionally raise the ball from a hit except for a shot at goal”.) permits a shot at goal to be made at any height. A raised shot has to be made at goal, not deliberately at a defender standing either in goal or between the goal and the striker.
- Tackling Lift
There is nothing in the Rules to prevent any player in possession of the ball from lifting it over the stick of an opponent to resist a tackle, be it in the outfield, in the circle, or entering the circle, provided that the condition of Rule 13.1.3 b (“Players shall not intentionally raise the ball so that it lands directly in the circle.”) (replaced with a prohibition on intentionally raising the ball with a hit except when making a shot at the goal) is met. The last point is important: where the ball is lifted in such a manner over an opponent’s stick and enters the circle while still in the air, there is NO offence.
- Tactical Lift
When a ball is deliberately raised in a legitimate manner anywhere on the pitch the umpire should decide upon its merits as advised in the Rules Interpretations of the Rule Book. This form of play is used for tactical purposes, often to reverse the opposing defence. In general, it is fair to say that players who raise the ball in this manner, usually by scooping, consciously try to avoid danger to anyone in the flight path of the ball. The umpire is therefore seeking reasons why such a raised ball SHOULD be penalised. A player receiving a dropping ball should be given time and space in which safely to do so without real or threatened interference from an opponent. (Rule 13.1.3 c “Players shall not approach within 5 metres of a player receiving a falling aerial ball until it has been played and is on the ground.”) (this is very loosely applied, now opponents approach without penalty to within 5m of the receiving player as soon as the ball is played) Note that the ball, having been intentionally lifted in this way, may not fall into the circle.(no longer applicable, flicks and scoops may be played into the circle)
ACCIDENTAL LIFT
On the other hand, the ball is often raised accidentally, usually by a stick interfering with the flight of the ball, rather than by any deliberate attempt to play it.(????) In such circumstances, the ball is likely to fly upwards in an unpredictable trajectory, thus being both dangerous in itself and likely to cause danger. A ball hit some 15 cm in the air into a crowded circle is an example. The Umpire, therefore, is likely to be seeking reasons why this raised ball should NOT be penalised but should wait to determine whether this actual danger.. (? unfinished)
Interpretation
No matter where on the field the ball is raised, and no matter what the circumstances of the lift, the umpire must always judge whether a player has been genuinely endangered in any of the ways described. Umpires should be on their guard against players who simulate ducking out of the way of raised balls simply to try to “con” them into thinking that such a ball is dangerous. Similarly, umpires should not be misled by defenders, often in goal, who allow themselves to be hit by the ball so as to be able to claim that the shot was dangerous.(apparently now adopted as the standard thinking about ‘Legitimate evasive action)The same standards of judgement must be applied wherever and whenever the ball is raised. It is therefore important that umpires recognise, and agree before each game according to the level and playing conditions of that game, what is the likely distance inside which those particular players are likely to have to defend their own persons instead of playing the ball properly.(ignored if player more than 5m from ball) Other factors need to be considered for raised shots at goal, however.
RAISED SHOTS AT GOAL IN OPEN PLAY
The goal is there to be shot at. The goalkeeper is well-protected and has no grounds for protest about high shots at goal. So far as any other defenders are concerned, if they stand in the goal to defend high shots, they must accept the penalty if the ball hits them contrary to Rule 13.1.2 b (“Players shall not intentionally stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their bodies.”). They can be said, perhaps, to have arrogated to themselves the duty of goalkeeper without having goalkeeper’s privileges. High shots include hits, flicks and scoops.(note the assumption made that a defender who is hit with the ball had the intention to be so hit)Having said this, it must nevertheless be remembered that no player should ever be put to the necessity of self-defence, and that includes goalkeepers. Although properly protected, goalkeepers can still be injured by balls projected at them from so short a range and in such a manner that they are unable to adopt a naturally protective posture. In high level games, with physically fit, young, skilled players, it is possible that the minimum safe distance for a rising shot is about (than)? 3 metres. In less skilled games, that distance will probably be not less than 9 metres and could be more (reaction times have nothing to do with skill, Gawley confuses anticipation with reaction) . In all cases, the distances may increase dependent on other circumstances, not least whether the players defending the goal have a clear view of the whole flight of the ball from the moment that it is first propelled upwards. Judgement of what is dangerous must necessarily be subjective (That is not entirely true: height and distance are objective criteria which are actual and readily estimated by eye to a high degree of accuracy, and are thus suitable for the making of consistent decisions regarding a dangerously played ball . Subjective judgements are matters of opinion rather than of measurement e.g. “a ball velocity that could cause injury”, which is not a difficult subjective judgement or, where it is relevant, “intent” , which may be very difficult to discern. Fortunately intent where there is dangerous play is irrelevant ). Perhaps the soundest advice for the umpire is to consider that any raised ball is dangerous unless proved otherwise.In general, it is probably fair to say that a rising ball that would not be permitted on the grounds of safety in the outfield should not be permitted, for the same reasons, in the circle, whether for a shot at goal or, indeed, for clearing a shot at goal – a goalkeeper’s kick, for example. The exception is that the intentionally raised hit is permitted in the circle for a shot at goal; otherwise the same parameters apply. Note, however, that this advice is concerned mainly with high shots in OPEN PLAY. In these circumstances, there are usually few players in the circle and, as often as not, the shot is made in a one-on-one situation (this may have been true before the Off-side Rule was abolished but is no longer) . During Penalty Corners, where numbers of players are required by the Rules to operate within the circle, other considerations apply, all concerned primarily with Safety.
Summary
During open play, rising shots at goal are permitted provided the defending players have time to defend the goal rather than themselves. No player should EVER be permitted to raise the ball, anywhere on the pitch, that is dangerous to other players. If defenders other than goalkeepers dressed in protective clothing or helmeted “kicking backs” (who have goalkeepers’ privileges in the circle), elect to defend their goal, then a shot that would have been permitted against a fully-equipped goalkeeper should be permitted against them. And if they stop or play the ball with their bodies or sticks above their shoulders (above shoulder defending of a shot at the goal was not permitted in 2001), they should be penalisedunless they were endangered. ( it is difficult to see how a lifted shot of high velocity would not endanger the player it was lifted at- it would certainly force the defending player to either self-defence or evasive action - which defines a dangerously played ball)
RAISED SHOTS AT GOAL AT PENALTY CORNERS AND FROM CORNERS
- Players in the Circle
The Penalty Corner demands a maximum of 5 defenders behind their back or goal-line and places no limit on the number of attackers round the circle, though in practice the attackers usually number six or seven. There can thus be twelve or so players in the circle during the conduct of a Penalty Corner. For a Corner, and for other forms of Hit-in and Free Hit to the attackers where there has been a delay in play so as to allow players to gather in and near the circle, there is no limit to the numbers of players who may be in the circle. Eighteen players were counted on one occasion. Hits to the attack from the area of corner flags (corners, hits-in & free hits) are rightfully taken in open play, They are considered here with the Penalty Corner as likely to cause crowding within the circle. It can thus be seen that any ball raised into or within the circle in such circumstances has a great potential for danger. Such crowding underlines the need for umpires to judge whether players in the flight path of a raised ball have time properly to react to it. This is not to say that all raised balls in the circle are dangerous, nor that balls raised unintentionally into the circle are necessarily dangerous, but merely to indicate the potential for danger and hence the need for acute awareness and observation by the umpire.
- Penalty Corner
The defenders (including the Goalkeeper) are prohibited from deliberately raising the ball from a hit within the circle, or indeed outside it – Rule 13.1.3 a applies. The attackers, however, MAY deliberately raise the ball from a hit or other type of shot in the circle, but only for a shot at goal – not for a hit across the circle, for example. The one caveat to this permission is that the FIRST hit at goal at a Penalty Corner must comply with Rule 15.2 l (“If the first shot at goal is a hit, the ball must cross the goal-line at a height of not more than 460m (the height of the backboard) for a goal to be scored, unless it touches the stick or body of a defender.” (since amended)
Generally, the ball that is raised in the circle has a possible element of danger. But remember that any player may raise the ball over the stick of an opponent to resist a tackle. Once the first hit at goal in a Penalty Corner has been made, all subsequent hits may be at any height consonant with safety, as already described. However, still with the Penalty Corner, any other stroke to raise the ball may be made at any time, with no limit being placed on the height of the ball at any part of its flight. The only caveat on these forms of shot – usually scoops or flicks – is that of safety. And let us remember that the Penalty Corner Rule – specifically those sections applying to the first hit and the need first to stop the ball on the ground (no longer applicable) – ceases to apply if the ball goes beyond 5metres from the circle before re-entering it (Rule 15.2 (“If the ball travels more than 5metres from the circle, the penalty corner rules no longer apply”).
- The Scooped Ball
The ball that is flicked or scooped from near the inside edge of the circle so that it goes high over all heads and falls so that it will enter the goal just below the crossbar is not very likely to be dangerous when falling; the player(s) in the goal-mouth will see the ball raised, will see it during its flight, and will have time to decide how to defend the falling ball. They therefore have no excuse for playing the ball with their sticks whilst it is above their shoulders, for hitting the ball away in a dangerous manner, nor for using any part of their body to stop the ball. Only if the flick or scoop is at very short range, or if there are players in the line of sight between striker and goal, might the striker be penalised, and then usually only if the ball is still rising or if it is so low throughout its flight as to be obscured, for the receiver, by other players. Umpires should remember that the same conditions for dealing with a dropping ball apply for shots at goal as elsewhere on the pitch i.e. the player receiving the ball must be given time and space (5metres) in which to receive it safely.
- The Rising Shot
Having accepted the caveats noted above for the Penalty Corner, let us broaden thought to embrace the crowded circle. The same considerations previously mentioned still apply, i.e. the goal is there to be shot at, and defenders who arrogate to themselves the duty of goalkeeper must accept the penalty if they prevent a goal other than legitimately with their sticks.(note that the ‘perhaps’ before ‘arrogate’ has already disappeared from this (sic) new idea [of undetermined origin] – and, as above, positioning in the goal is seen, incorrectly, as an intention to use the body to play the ball) But, given the crowding already discussed, it is even more important that players defending any raised ball, regardless of its height, should have a clear view of the ball’s trajectory and have time either to remove themselves from its path or to play or try to play the ball legitimately. If they do not have such time, the ball raised at them must be considered dangerous and penalised immediately(ignored). But umpires should be on their guard against players who deliberately allow themselves to be hit by the ball so as to be able to claim that the lift was dangerous. It is the rising ball that is most likely to cause most danger, either because it can strike a player’s body, where its energy is likely to be absorbed, or because it can touch part of a stick and fly off unpredictably, with no loss of energy, to hit another player.
Summary
When the circle is crowded, such as at Penalty Corners and for hits from near the corner flag areas, there is a high potential for danger from any raised ball. Umpires must be alert to the risks involved but should not over-react merely because the ball is in the air or the body of a defender in the goal is struck by the ball. They should instead consider whether players have the necessary time and distance to avoid physical contact with the raised ball in favour of playing or attempting to play it legitimately, and not flinch from applying the appropriate penalty if avoiding action could have been taken. (There is some muddled thinking in that statement, as legitimate avoiding action – legitimate evasive action – defines a dangerously played ball ) The necessity for the first HIT at goal at a Penalty Corner not to cross the goal-line at a height greater than 460mm should also be borne in mind.
********************
The parts of the document highlighted in red are broadly the ‘current thinking’ and those highlighted in blue, even where they are part of the written rules and guidance issued by the HRB, are generally ignored. One of the most striking things about the document is, that having dismissed evasive action as an attempt ‘to con’ the umpire, there is no alternative way of determining if a ball has been played dangerously at another player offered. It’s “a subjective judgement” , but what criteria is that subjective judgement based upon in order that it may be applied consistently? The latest ‘thinking’ – that a shot on target cannot be dangerous - is a direct result of the adoption of parts of this document, but couldn’t be further away from the opening statements of it. This approach is however consistent, where no judgement relating to danger need be made – because an ‘on target’ shot cannot be dangerous – making inconsistent judgements about dangerous play is not a problem – very easy for the umpire. But is such an approach fair or in line with declared FIH policy on matters relating to player safety? I don’t think so. It may be said to be fair insofar as umpires apply it to both teams in the same way, but there is a profound unfairness evident between the approach to attackers and defenders, especially between shooter and defender in the circle.
In the same year this document was published the Rules Advisory Panel ceased to exist. Job done? It wouldn’t appear so, rules trials increased significantly after that date. Internal politics, ‘stepping on toes’ and ‘ruffled feathers’, seems a more likely reason – umpires had (openly) moved into laying down the rules – the prerogative of the Hockey Rules Board.
One of the priorities now for the HRB – in 2011 renamed the FIH Rules Committee - (if they are to retain any influence or credibility) must be to provide criteria for the recognition of the dangerously played ball: criteria that is fair, objective and can be applied consistently, without reliance on subjective judgement (the umpire’s opinion) alone. In the critical areas of the dangerously played shot at the goal and obstructive play i.e. ball shielding (both unique to hockey), umpires have demonstrated that consistency – and easy decision making – is achieved by ignoring these offences or pretending they do not exist; so umpires must confine themselves to applying the rules as given – not making or ‘reinterpreting’ them – their role in this area is to interpret the actions of players in relation to the written rules – not to ‘rewrite’ the rules (but without actually writing anything or referring to anything given by the FIH Rules Committee in the published Rules of Hockey).
********************************
The Rules of Hockey for 2013 -2015 have now been issued and include two Mandatory Experimental Rules, the Direct Lift of a free, which I have been advocating for years, and the Own Goal, which I think is a bad idea, especially as nothing further has been done to control the raised hit into the circle.
The opportunity to address deficiencies in the Rules concerning the dangerously played ball, in particular the introduction of objective criteria to define it, and the current ignoring of ball shielding as an offence has once again been allowed to slip by.
Among a number of other issues the penalty corner remains unchanged, the ban on the playing of a free ball, awarded in the opponent’s 23m area, into the circle remains, as does the mess of 5m restrictions cluttering the Self-Pass. Nothing has been done to free up the receiving of an aerial ball at above shoulder height by a player in free-space.
The Direct Lift is the one improvement, but without prohibiting the lifting of a free, awarded outside the opponents 23m area, into the circle – and so the development of set-pieces based on that – this improvement is likely to lead to more dangerous situations in the circles.
.
The penalty corner was introduced into field hockey the early 1900′s, to replace a bully on the 25 yard line following an offence by a defender. Very soon after an amendment to the rule made it compulsory to stop the ball (at the time within the circle), for safety reasons, before a shot at the goal (then not height restricted if hit), could be taken. Since then the rule clauses relating to the penalty corner have had more additions and amendments than any other rule, probably more than all the other rules put together, and it is still unsatisfactory. I think its introduction was a mistake and I believe that if at present we did not have a penalty corner no-one would seriously consider introducing it in its present form to the modern game. We still have it because no suitable alternative has been suggested (or at least none accepted).
I think we might however adopt from ice-hockey the concept of the power-play and use it as a time limited penalty in place of the penalty corner. Below is set out what I think is a workable replacement , which would be conducted as a small open play game , without the shooting restrictions of the penalty corner, but with a dangerously lifted ball or dangerous shot at the goal; that being being one that is 1) lifted at an opponent 2) above elbow height 3) with a velocity sufficient to force an opponent to self-defence (play the ball or evade it) to avoid injury. (The current at an opponent at above knee height from within 5m remains in place - but see post on lifted ball suggesting that 3m is here sufficient)
The penalty-play I suggest is a time limited 5 v 4 power-play. Five attackers, four defenders. It is based on the present penalty corner format, that is a ball inserted into play from the back-line by an individual attacker to other attackers (limited to four) positioned behind a line a given distance from the goal (the 23m line instead of the circle line) who will then, together with the insert attacker, try to score a goal in the time allowed, which is half a minute (trial needed to see if this time is suitable). The defenders are initially positioned as in the present penalty corner.
Penalty-play.
1 Positioning.
a. The ball is placed on the back-line inside the circle, at least 10 metres from the nearest goal-post, on whichever side of the goal the attacking team prefers.
b. Four other attackers must be on the field, beyond the nearest 23m line with sticks, hands and feet not touching the ground inside the 23m before the ball is inserted.
c. The remaining attackers and defenders must be positioned behind the centre-line when the ball is inserted.
d. Not more than four defenders, including the goalkeeper, if there is one, must be positioned behind the goal-line or back-line with their sticks, hands and feet not touching the ground inside the field.
If the team defending a penalty play has chosen to play with field players only, none of the four defenders involved in the penalty-play has goalkeeping privileges.
e. No defender is permitted to be within five meters of the ball when the push or hit is taken by the attacker on the back-line.
2 Procedure.
a. The attacking team have thirty seconds from the moment of ‘insert’ of the ball to complete their attack. If the ball is still in play after that period ‘stop time’ is blown (table or trailing umpire timing) and a 15m awarded to the defending team from in line with the goalpost they choose. (Game restated with whistle). An alternative would be for normal open play to resume, but a signal other than an umpire’s whistle would be required to indicate ‘time up’ and allow the remaining players to engage (perhaps an air-horn used by a ‘timing official’ pitch-side).
b. Game time is stopped when a penalty-play is awarded and is restarted as the ball is inserted. Timing of the penalty-play begins simultaneously with the restart of game timing.
c. The umpire blows a whistle to signal the commencement of the penalty-play and the ball may then be ‘inserted’ into play by an attacker, from the chosen 10m mark and towards the 23m line, where four more attackers have taken up positions of their choosing.
d. Defenders behind the goal-line or back-line are permitted to cross the back-line immediately the ball is played by the ‘insert’ attacker.
e. The involved attackers, initially positioned directly behind the 23m area, may move across the 23m line as soon as the ball is ‘inserted’.
f. Until the ball is inserted no attacker is permitted to enter the the 23m area (the insert player excepted because he may have one foot and possibly both in the circle if he uses a drag stroke to ‘insert’ the ball – the requirement to have one foot outside the pitch being deleted)
g. Attackers and defenders who are not initially involved are to be positioned behind the centre-line but may move up to the 23m line as soon as the ball has been played back into the 23m area. They must however remain outside the 23m area during the penalty-play and may not physically interfere with the playing of it. (Calling instructions to team-mates would not be regarded as interference but obstruction, impeding or attempting to play the ball would be)
h. After playing the ball, the attacker taking the push or hit from the back-line must not play the ball again or approach within playing distance of it until it has been played by another player
i. The ball may be played by a second attacker (the first being the insert player) before it crosses the 23m, line but a goal cannot be scored until the ball has crossed out of the 23m area and has then been reinserted into the penalty-play area (the 23m area) by one of the four attackers initially behind the 23m line,
j. Hitting the ball directly into the circle from beyond the 23m line or dribbling of the ball into the 23m area and then hitting it directly into the circle is prohibited: the ball must be played into the circle from within the 23m area after a third attacker, to whom the ball is passed by the initial receiver, has played it. (The insert player being the first player, the receiver behind the 23 line the second and a second receiver within the 23m area the third. The initial receiver may pass the ball to any one of the other four involved attackers, receive the ball a second time, and then play it into the circle.) The purpose of this compulsory pass is to prevent an immediate hard hit into the circle for the insert player to deflect into the goal before defenders can adopt marking positions. The aim is to make a penalty power play as close as possible to an open play situation, but with the advantage of a ‘man over’ and a play plan.
k. If an attacker, who was not one of the initial four between the 23m line and the centre-line at the commencement of the power play, crosses into the 23m area before the time limit of the corner has expired, a free-pass will be awarded to the defence on the 23m line at a place of their choosing. (the trailing umpire will watch for this offence)
l. If a defender, who was behind the centre-line at the commencement of the power play, crosses into the 23m area before the time limit of the corner has expired another penalty-play (and a personal penalty) may be awarded.
m. If a yellow or red card is issued to any defender during a penalty-play (including those behind the centre-line at commencement) and another penalty-play is awarded the subsequent penalty-play will be with three defenders only (and so on to two etc.). If the goalkeeper is guilty of an infraction that should result in being sent to the half-line, another defending player may be nominated to retire during the subsequent penalty power.
3 Completion.
The penalty-play is completed when:
a. a goal is scored
b. an attacker involved in the penalty commits an offence (free-pass at place of offence or 15m if closer to back-line)
c the ball is played over a side-line.
d. the ball is played over the 23m line for a second time but does not go out of play (normal play resumes)
e. the ball is played over the back-line. (intentionally playing the ball over the back-line by a defender will result in a normal play corner, not another penalty-play).
f. a penalty stroke is awarded.
g. there is a no offence stoppage which would normal play result in a bully (another penalty play will be awarded – but see article suggesting an alternative penalty http://wp.me/pKOEk-Kd
h. the time limit expires. (15m free-pass for defence) or as a trial alternative (normal play resumes).
4. Retakes
a. If a defender commits an offence, which disadvantages the attacking side sufficiently for the umpire to stop play, another penalty-play will be awarded – unless a penalty stoke has been awarded.
b. If play is stopped during the taking of a penalty-play because of an injury or for any other reason and a bully would otherwise be awarded, the penalty-play must be taken again – but see http://wp.me/pKOEk-Kd
c. If one or more of the defenders positioned behind the goal-line or back-line breaks early, that is before the insert player has played the ball, a caution will be issued and the penalty-play reset. (Persistent breaking in this way – that is once again after a warning has been issued – may be penalised with a reduction in the number of defenders and on the third occasion with a penalty stroke.)
5. Substitutions
a. Except in case of injury (see below) there will be no substitutions between the time a penalty play is awarded and the whistle to commence it is blown. Once the whistle to commence is blown the players not directly involved in the penalty-play (any player initially beyond the centre-line before commencement) may be substituted.
b. If a player is injured during a penalty-play and another penalty-play is awarded the injured player may be substituted before the subsequent penalty-play commences.
c. Neither the defenders or the attackers involved in a penalty-play are confined the 23m area while it is ongoing but the initial four from each team cannot exchange place with team-mates not in the initial line-up for each penalty-play.(It may be necessary for those nominated to take part in a penalty-play to wear a distinctive article of clothing such as an arm-band)
d. If a fully kitted goalkeeper is suspended during a penalty-play he may be replaced with another player in goalkeeping kit from within the on-field players or from the bench. If he is replaced from the bench the captain must nominate one of the players involved in the penalty-play to leave the pitch (which could be himself). Should the goalkeeper be awarded a red card he or she must leave the pitch area immediately but may be replaced and another defender nominated to retire to the half-line if another power play is awarded. 6. Overtime.
a. The match is prolonged at half-time and full-time to allow completion of a penalty-play or any subsequent penalty-play awarded or a penalty stroke awarded during the penalty-play.
There could of course be an immediate dip in the number of goals scored from this penalty (which is intermediate between a free-pass and a penalty stroke) because passing drills that will create opportunity for a scoring shot will have to be worked out, but teams should soon become as proficient at that as the small group setting up a drag-flicker are now. Ah yes, the drag-flick, won’t be required.
The ban on the intentionally raised hit in field hockey. – Dangerous lifting of the ball. Suggestions.
The hurling style lift-and-hit is not now specifically banned, as it once was, but would probably be regarded as a lifted hit; we have no idea if bouncing the ball on the stick is technically permitted, stationary or running, although it is usually allowed if not dangerous (in what circumstances this action would be considered dangerous was at one time set out in the Rules of Hockey, but was removed – I have no idea why) and the up-and-under slap-hit of a bouncing or falling ball that produces a lob-like effect, can be a spectacular skill, has never been ruled for, but is seen occasionally in the modern game.
If we take the present rule literally (how else can we take it?) the lob-hit (as I have above termed it), no matter how much attacking players and umpires would like to see it as part of the game (i.e. they would like it for attackers but not defenders – who could possibly use such a stoke to hit the ball out of the circle), is presently not legal – and the advantage gained can be huge.
I have read Internet discussions where it is suggested, as a ‘get round’ that this hit-lob might be referred to as guiding or stroking the ball rather than as hitting it ( The ‘bending’ of rule with such semantics is only a good argument for reducing subjective decision making by umpires. Where it is felt a Rule is inappropriate for game circumstances there should be lobby to change the rule not a tacit circumvention of it ).
The hurling-hit can be lethal but it is presumably now (as it is no longer specifically banned) legal from within the circle as method of making a shot at the goal.
Bouncing the ball on the stick is technically hitting it, but as the ball is not propelled beyond the playing reach of the ball holder, it could be seen as a dribbling skill. It is easy enough to make an exception for this skill as long as it is done out of the playing reach of an opponent, but the hit-lob and the hurling-hit propel the ball in ways that are only really different in terms of power (and therefore of potential danger of injury), even if the style of action (position of hands and arc of swing) are not the same. The lob can of course, like the longer scoop, result in a ball falling from above head height onto the positions of opponents who are too close to each other for safety.
The admonishment in regard to certain playing actions “but this should not be dangerous” is a prohibition that results in the award of a penalty after dangerous play has actually occurred; by itself it does not prevent injuries caused by the presently allowed (but possibly not legal) strokes, such as those I have termed hurling-hit and lob-hit, and also the blindly propelled drag-flick (the flick that is propelled at the same place each time irrespective of the positions of defenders) , all of which have a very high potential for dangerous execution: other limits are required.
The blanket ban on the intentional lifted hit in the outfield is too simplistic and, as the possible variations in lifting stroke are limited, it is possible to compose rules to either include or exclude from the game particular hitting actions used to lift the ball, and also to control the scope of those that are permitted.
Certain flicking or scooping actions are also potentially dangerous because the ball velocity will reach that of a well struck lifted hit, ( I recently read an interview of Ashley Jackson in which a claim of 100mph was made for his drag-flick – which, if accurate, is astonishing, as most good hitters of the ball have difficulty exceeding 75mph). It is obvious that because of the potential for serious injury to any player struck with a ball of such velocity (or the more common 60 -70mph), any reference to lifting the ball coupled with dangerous play must include such strokes – the days when it was possible to assume that a lifted flick or scoop would be of much lower velocity than an undercut hit are long gone.
There are four criteria that may be used to limit any lifted ball and to describe potentially dangerous play. The first is that the ball must not be propelled at a player in a way that forces self-defence, the other three are Velocity; Height; Distance. I will start with a suggestion for a rule wording to which modifications can be made and guidance added.
A player shall not propel the ball at another player at above a height of 1200mm (elbow height).
This initial suggested rule wording applies to a ball propelled from any distance where player reaction may be insufficient to allow a player targeted with the ball to make an adequate self-defence (evade, stop or control/deflect the ball) because of the velocity of the ball or because that player was unsighted or otherwise handicapped (for example, blocked, barged or otherwise impeded) at or just prior to the moment the ball was propelled. Wording for Guidance needs to be composed to include what is necessary for the reasonable safety of players from the above and the following observations.
(There can be no absolute safety and such a target would be undesirable anyway, hockey is a competitive sport with a hard ball and sticks, danger is inherent in such activity, therefore some risk of injury must be accepted by any player who takes part in a hockey game. The aim is to prevent injury as a result of actions that are contrary to Rule by describing clearly what actions are illicit and will be penalized so that players will be be deterred from intentionally carrying out these actions).
RULE SUGGESTION: The ball may not be propelled with any stroke at above elbow height at another player in a way that forces self defence.
Above elbow height is the area of the heart, throat and head and an area where a ball impact at high velocity is likely to cause serious and/or long term injury or possibly even death. A ball propelled at a player at elbow height or above and at high velocity is therefore likely to compel self-defence to avoid injury.
The usual speed at which a hockey ball is hit or flicked by a top class striker (which does not necessarily mean a highly skilled player) is at present between 60mph -75mph. A ball propelled at 75mph will travel approximately 33.85m in one second.
The average pure reaction time (time between stimulus and physical movement, using simple single tasks in laboratory experiments e.g. pressing a button when a light is lit) of a healthy individual is approximately 0.22 seconds, variation is normally in the range 0.20 secs. – 0.24 secs. Pure reaction time cannot be significantly improved by training, although minor short term reductions (two or three hundredths of a second) are possible and can be maintained with repeated training. Anticipation, on the other hand, such as the ‘reading’ of ‘body-language’ as an opponent approaches and makes the stroke to propel the ball, can be greatly improved by both training and by playing experience – this is the skill which is so often mistakenly referred to as ‘fast reactions’.
A ball propelled at 75mph will travel approximately 7.5m in 0.22 seconds. In view of the complex nature of the response required to either successfully play the ball or to evade it, even without distractions like closing attackers or impediments such as sight-blocking, it is reasonable to state that any ball lifted above elbow height and at high velocity at an opponent can, because of its potential to injure, be dangerous to that opponent. A ball propelled in this way may, if it hits an opponent, be penalised as dangerous play or intimidation or a forcing offence and dangerous play or intimidation if it compels any player to self-defence (with the stick or by attempting evasive action).
(Note: The offence of forcing an opponent into a rule breach has been removed from the Rules of Hockey 2011/13 as a separate offence in itself – I think this to be a serious error of judgement by the FIH Rules Committee)
The previous removal of the facility for a targeted player to defend himself with his hand is also contentious, especially as it was once printed in the Rules of Hockey in upper case letter to emphasize its importance. The conclusion must be that if a player believes he cannot defend himself with his stick, he should if he can, evade the ball – not defend himself with his hand. One of the problems with this conclusion is that despite ’caused to take legitimate evasive action’ being a definition of a dangerously played ball, such evasion, when the defender is in front of the goal, usually results in the award of a goal and not a free-ball to the defence for dangerous play, which logically and fairly it should – such failure to use and apply the definition of ‘dangerously played’ may lead to defenders taking unnecessary risks, risks they should not ever feel obliged to take, to defend the goal in a game.
No maximum distance limit is proposed simply because in the past any distance given has been regarded as a maximum distance, outside which there can be no ball played dangerously at an opponent, (the present , incorrect, attitude of many to the current “within 5m is considered dangerous” is that a ball propelled from beyond 5m of a player can’t be dangerous to that player). Height and velocity are the main criteria but of course (other things being equal e,g. the absence of sight blocking) the nearer the striker is to the opponent the less time there is to react to the path of the ball, and the greater the velocity the greater the potential for injury.
A maximum distance for a dangerously played ball can also be seen to be impractical when the scooped ball is considered as a cause of dangerous play or play leading to dangerous play , a limit of 10m or 15m would still leave most scoops outside the rule when considering if the ball was lifted to fall in a place where the potential for danger was apparent at the time the ball was lifted, e.g. the area between the penalty spot and the goal when players who were likely to contest for the falling ball occupied that area. (for example in the 2010 World Cup game between England and Pakistan where the English player Tindal who was positioned in the opponent’s circle hit a falling ball, on the volley, into the goal while it was being contested for by a defender, who had closed on Tindal and attempted to play the ball with his stick well above his head height ).
The previous prohibition on lifting the ball above knee height at another player who is within 5m of the ball at the moment it is propelled, irrespective of velocity, must remain but it is suggested that it be amended to apply only within 3m of the ball, not 5m.
A ball propelled to pass between the legs of an opponent at above knee height and from within 3m should be considered to be at that opponent.
High velocity is a subjective judgement.
A high velocity ball is one that has been propelled at a velocity at which, in the judgement of the umpire, if it hit a player it would injure that player.
The judgement of high velocity should not be based on supposed reaction times or skill levels (on the ability of the player to play a ball propelled at him or to evade it) but on the potential of the ball to cause injury when it is played at and forces another player to self-defence or hits him.
Where an over-height ball at a defender is intercepted with the stick successfully by that defender the umpire need take no action against the player who propelled the ball (but may do so to discourage repetition of the action if it is seen as reckless); where the defender is disadvantaged – forced to evasive self-defence or hit, particularly when the attacker had other shooting options, and especially in congested or contested situations, the umpire should penalise the shooter for dangerous play.
Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary (such as repetition of apparently targeting a defender when there were clearly other options available to the shooter, e.g. repeatedly propelling a drag-flick at a particular place in the goal when previous flicks there have forced evasive action or forced self-defence from either an out-running player or a player positioned in front of the goal ) it will be assumed that an attacker shooting at the goal when there are defenders stationed between the attackers position and the goal, is shooting at the goal and not intentionally at defenders – but hitting a defender with a ball that is propelled at that defender at above elbow height at high velocity (or above knee height from within 3m irrespective of velocity) should be seen as dangerous play, irrespective of such intent, and penalised as such.
In the same way it will also be assumed, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, that a defender hit with the ball while attempting to intercept a shot at the goal, intended to play the ball with his stick and not with his body. ( evidence to the contrary would be a player making no effort at all to play the ball with the stick when that was possible, or moving laterally into the path of the ball after it has been propelled – but again, only if there is no attempt to use the stick to play the ball)
Any legitimate* positioning in front of the goal to defend the goal prior to a shot should notbe interpreted as an intent to play the ball with the body (even if the body is positioned behind the stick) or as an acceptance that the defender can be targeted with the ball by an attacker. The notion that a defender intentionally endangers himself by taking up a defensive position in front of the goal, between an attacker in possession of the ball and the goal, must be suppressed as unsound – because it is a judgement that may be made without tangible evidence other than the fact that the player was hit with the ball, which is not clear evidence of intent to play the ball with the body.
The idea that the defender accepts all possible risks when defending the goal, even those associated with dangerous play and other illegal acts by opponents, is unreasonable: so unreasonable it is absurd. The risks defenders (and all other players) accept are those associated with legal play, not illegal play. The current climate of opinion seems to be to change what was previously considered illegal dangerous play to legitimate play, thus removing all responsibility for shooting actions from the shooter. We have reached the point where umpires are informing players that an ‘on target’ shot at the goal cannot be dangerous – such umpires are abdicating from their responsibility to see that the game is played fairly and reasonably safely. No doubt that is the easy thing to do and it is consistent but it is not fair and it is unsafe.
The umpire should try to prevent any repeat of reckless endangerment by penalising it whenever it occurs – it can occur if an attacker shoots at a defender when there are other viable ways to score, such as open space in the goal wide of the position of the defender, that the attacker had opportunity take advantage of. Whether play by an attacker when shooting at the goal is reasonable or reckless is a judgement call by the umpire, part of that judgement is the prior positioning of any defender ( an attacker should seek to avoid hitting a defender with the ball) and part the time and options available to the attacker.
*(Legitimate positioning by defenders does not include deliberately lying on the ground and other similar reckless positioning in the path of the ball, such as sitting or kneeling; the term assumes a normal on-feet playing stance by all except the goal-keeper, who may ‘go to ground’ at any time, but not make physical contact with an opponent while doing so).
Shots at the goal from within the circle.
Suggested Guidance Any shot at goal within the circles in open play (or second and subsequent shots at a penalty corner) may be propelled at the goal to any height but may not be propelled at high velocityat any player at above 1200mm. – the approximate elbow height of a male player of average height when in a normal standing position. (Adjustment to this suggested height can and should be made for women and further adjustment for junior players according to age).
A ball which passes between the point of the shoulder and the side of the head of a player will be considered to be at the player concerned. At levels below the head a ball that will miss an opponent will not be considered to be at that opponent no matter how closely it may pass outside their position without contact.
All shots at the goal from within the circle made at below knee-height from any distance will (subject to reckless play) be considered legitimate. An above knee-height shot at the goal that is also at a defender – but is below 1200mm – should (subject to reckless play) be considered a legitimate shot at any velocity from any distance beyond 3m.
All else being equal (e.g. there being no prior offence by the attacker to take into consideration and the shot cannot reasonably be considered reckless e.g. if the attacker did not have other target options or the time to choose an alternative shot), if a defended other than the goalkeeper is struck on the body with a legitimate shot at the goal and thereby prevents a goal, a penalty stroke may be awarded. This is because the purpose of the game is to win by scoring goals and there is no other measure of winning, so an unfair benefit will have accrued to the team of a player who prevents a goal other than by legitimate means, and adequate compensation for this unfairness must be given to the attacking team. This penalty is also necessary to prevent reckless defending.
If the defending player did not clearly intend to play the ball with the body but prevented a goal a penalty-stroke is sufficient penalty (the option of a penalty-goal is not available in these circumstances**); where there is clear intent to use the body to play the ball the defender concerned should also be suspended.
**(there is a reasonable case for the introduction of a penalty goal in cases where a certain goal has been prevented by clearly deliberate use of the body by a defender other than the nominated goalkeeper – this would prevent defenders being reckless enough to deliberately move to put their body in the way of a shot, without an attempt to use the stick, in the hope that the subsequent penalty stroke will be missed).
If a defender is hit with a shot or other ball propelled inside the circle by an attacker but he does not certainly prevent a goal (e.g. there being other defenders behind the one hit when the shot at the goal was made) then all else being equal (e.g. no clear intent by the defender to use the feet/body, no injury to the defender, no reckless play by the attacker)play should continue. An unavoidable or accidental ball/body contact is not an offence and there is no reason other than an offence (or injury) for the umpire to stop play or penalize when there is a ball/body contact. There is ample evidence that penalizing accidental or unavoidable foot and body/ ball contacts will probably encourage reckless shooting at the goal or the deliberate forcing of such contacts by attacking players in possession of the ball. It is in fact much more reasonable to penalise an attacker for gaining a benefit from a ball/body contact in the opponent’s circle than it is to penalise a defender for such a contact – unless a defender makes such ball/body contact intentionally.
Much of what has been written above will apply particularly to the drag flick when it is used as a first shot at a penalty-corner and the ball is lifted high at the goal; such drag flicks need have no height limit as long as they are made at a part of the goal that is open at the time the stroke is executed, not made directly at a player.
Lifted ball in the areas outside the circles.
In this proposal the dangerously played ball rule is the same everywhere on the field of play, i.e. a ball may not be propelled at a player at high velocity at above elbow height anywhere on the field of play.
Outside the circles the ball may be lifted in any direction to any height with any stroke except a hit.
I propose that the ball should also be permitted to be lifted with a hit to elbow height when play is outside the circles , but must not in any circumstances be lifted with a hit to above shoulder height – such play will be considered either dangerous or time-wasting (it will probably be necessary to devise an exception for the lob-hit mentioned above).
Allowing the lifted hit in the outfield would make it necessary to reintroduce a prohibition on the lifting of the ball with a hit directly into the circle. This ban should apply to a ball lifted directly off the stick of the striker and directly into the circle, not to deflections off the surface of the pitch outside the circle. But any deflection of a hit from outside the circle, off the ground or off the stick of a team-mate out-side the circle should be required pass into the circle at below knee height and not rise to above knee height during its flight within the circle. Flicks,scoops and lobs into and from within the circle to remain unrestricted in height except where the flick or scoop is from a free ball. A free ball should not be lifted directly into the circle with any stroke in any circumstances.
The hurling-hit i.e. lifting the ball with the stick and then hitting it before it falls to ground or on the half-volley, as it bounces up from the ground after such a lift, should be banned in the outfield and not permitted as a shot at the goal when there is a defender other than the nominated goalkeeper between the shooter and the goal. (For the purpose of this particular suggestion, a field player standing in for a goalkeeper as a ‘kicking back’ i.e. wearing only a helmet as additional protection, should be treated as a field player, not as a fully equipped goalkeeper)
An attacker receiving a raised ball in the circle may take a shot at the goal on the volley only if the ball is below elbow height when he hits it, but if he does carry out this action he should shoot downwards towards the goal (but not so as to cause the ball to bounce up off the pitch above knee height before it crosses the goal line), essentially he should not not raise the ball into the goal higher than it was when he hit it and also not dangerously or recklessly. Alternatively he could control the received aerial ball to ground and then shoot at the goal without height restriction, but of course not dangerously or recklessly.
ADDITIONAL FIELD EQUIPMENT .
A brightly coloured strong woven tape, no more than 50mm wide, to be run from the back of each goal-post and around the back of the goal-net and supports at a height of 1200mm. The front and sides of goalposts will be marked with paint or plastic sticking tape at the same height and at the same width.(The goal tape can be adjustable and may be lower for junior players). The alternative discussed here:
A first hit shot at a penalty corner which is raised sufficiently above 460mm to make it improbable that it will fall below 460mm before it reaches the goal-line should be penalised immediately that is apparent, as dangerous (or as non-compliant) and a 15m awarded to the defending team.
After the ball is inserted at a penalty corner it should not be permitted to be played by any attacking player until it has passed completely out of the circle. If the ball does not reach the circle line after it is inserted the umpire should blow the whistle when it becomes stationary, declare the ball ‘dead’ and award a 15m free - which should then be taken from any position in front of the goal and 15m from the goal – unless the defending team intercept the ball and wish to continue play – in which case normal play would resume and attackers could engage. In such a case the penalty corner would not be over until the ball was played to beyond the 5m outer circle or played out of the shooting circle for a second time and a goal could not be scored until the ball has been played out of the circle and had then been played back in.
Amended 8th February 2011
Goal tape. The straps used as cargo ties on transport are suitable. They can be hooked to the back of the goal-posts, and tensioned with elasticated ties or using an integral ratchet (which should be suitably covered for safety).
.
