Field Hockey Rules. Forced voluntarily.

Syllogism.

A pattern of deductive reasoning consisting of two premises and a conclusion – which may be valid or invalid, depending on what conclusion is arrived at by the reasoning of the person giving the conclusion.

Example.        

Premise one.      All men are mortal.

Premise two.      Socrates is a man.

Conclusion.        Socrates is mortal.

The premises are offered as true, so the above conclusion could be challenged by a pedant on the grounds that the evidence that Socrates is a man is subjective and unproven even if Socrates asserts ‘himself’ that ‘he’ is a man and this ‘fact’ is by agreed by common consent. This moves the ‘debate’ from one about mortality to another, possibly more ambiguous area, a definition of gender. However in this case the conclusion is not that Socrates is a man – that is given as a premise – but that Socrates is mortal, and that is not in dispute. The syllogism is more accurately set up by replacing the word ‘men’ and ‘man’ in the premises with ‘human being/s’.

Premise one.          All human beings are mortal.

Premise two.           Socrates is a human being.

Conclusion.             Socrates is mortal.

Such adjustments to wording can, if used carefully,  point the way to unambiguous and logical rule statements

The problem I invented arose because, in the first premise, ‘men’ may be seen to have been used as a generic term, to denote all human beings (as in mankind), and an ambiguity is created when, in the second premise, ‘man’ appears to be gender specific i.e. to exclude women. Rational people know that women are not immortal either and may also know that the term ‘men’ may have been used in a way that includes ‘women’. (the practice is not unusual in documentation to achieve brevity and clarity;  until 2004 the Rules of Hockey used ‘he’ and ‘his’ to also mean ‘she’ and ‘her’) in other words premises that are not stated but are ‘known’ need to be taken into consideration unless this is specifically forbidden. It is often useful to exclude the general  ’common sense’ of a premise to achieve a communal sense of the true meaning i.e. agreement and consistency in interpretation using only what is given in text. Only a given premise wording is then initially considered. Additional facts (words) that can be seen by ‘common sense’ to be  missing are, in this way, more likely to be noted as missing and included (or at least discussed before) subsequently constructed premises are finalised.

A syllogism can therefore be challenged – said to be invalid- by disputing either of the premises or, if it does not appear to be a logical deduction from accepted premises, the conclusion. In the usual course of conversation or even of writing, the syllogism with which I began the article would not be remarked upon – I got it as the example given in a dictionary definition of a syllogism – but it was possible to make a criticism of it. The syllogism given in the Oxford English Dictionary, with the definition of the word, is much more open to dispute, but that is pointed out in the OED entry with which I began this article,  syllogisms may be valid or invalid. E.g:-

All dogs are animals

All animals have four legs

Therefore all dogs have four legs.

The conclusion would not be disputed by any reasonable person (who knew what a dog was) but the second premise certainly could be – dolphins and apes are but two examples of species of animal that do not have four legs. The conclusion does not follow from the premise  ”Some animals have four legs” and the conclusion “Some dogs have four legs” is obviously incorrect.  Presenting one true and one false premise together with an obviously true conclusion is a ‘technique’ often used to get a very dubious  premise ‘accepted’. The weak premise is ‘accepted’ without much thought because the other statements are so obviously correct.

The point I am making is that the given premises, as well as the ‘deducted’ conclusion, need to be critically examined when someone is trying to ‘prove’ a point by using a syllogism – or , beyond that, using the conclusions of two syllogisms as the premises of a third…. and so on. Obviously where ‘proofs’ are being demonstrated statements that are known to be fallacious should not be accepted as premises (or accepted only as a way of disproving). The finding of flaws in premises need not be taken to the point where further criticism of the semantics or syntax would be absolutely impossible, but obvious contradictions of terms, potential ambiguities in wording, etc. should be pointed out and clarified or corrected when reasonable conclusions are looked for.

The Socrates syllogism has reasonable premises and conclusion and perhaps only a pedant would call it invalid, the one about dogs is clearly an invalid syllogism from the given premises, even if all dogs are animals and all normal dogs have four legs, because the second of the two premises cannot by itself , due to known fallacy, lead to the given conclusion and for the same reason does not assist its partner to do so.

Discussions concerning the Rules of Hockey contain many assertions and conclusions which are seemingly (or at first sight) based on deductive reasoning, but are invalid because one or more of the premises offered are fallacious or ambiguous (open to misinterpretation and therefore to misapplication), or the conclusions are not logical (rational) deductions if one or both the premises are accepted as true.

The topic. Voluntarily making body contact with the ball.

In 2004 the HRB (FIH Rules Committee) changed the Rule Guidance embedded in the ball body contact Rule from :-

13.1.2 Use of body, hands, feet by players other than goal-keepers

Players shall not:-

a. stop or catch the ball with the hand

There is nothing to prevent players using their hands to protect themselves from dangerously raised balls.

b. intentionally stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their bodies

It is not automatically an offence if the ball hits the foot or body of a player. On many occasions when a ball hits the foot or body of a player an offence will not have taken place and play should continue.

It is only an offence if the ball hits the foot or body of a player and that player:

• moved intentionally into the path of the ball, or

• made no effort to avoid being hit, or

• was positioned with the clear intention to stop the ball with the foot or body, or

• gains benefit.

To this

9.10 Field players must not stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their body.

It is not an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player, unless that player or their team benefits from this.

No offence is committed if the ball hits the hand holding the stick but would otherwise have hit the stick.

removing the word ‘intentionally’ from the Rule.

Then in 2007 the word ‘voluntarily’ was added to the Rule Guidance and ‘gains benefit’ was removed. (*) Which gives the current (2013) Rule.

9.11 Field players must not stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their body.

It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player. The player

only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball or if they

position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way.

It is not an offence if the ball hits the hand holding the stick but would otherwise have hit the stick.

It was not revealed why ‘intentionally’ was dropped from the Rule or why a few years later ‘voluntarily’ was added to the Rule Guidance. Perhaps it was because dropping ‘intentionally’ completely was later considered to have been too big a step or a mistake and ‘voluntarily’ was thought a suitable synonym to replace it without loss of ‘face’. Who knows? But there was a problem; umpires had quickly, post 2004, become accustomed to penalising any and all  ball/body contact (some had always done so because the fact of such contact is a very easy objective criteria, it requires observation but little judgement) and they were reluctant to go back to the difficulty and uncertainty of looking for intention or voluntary contact.

(*) Three weeks after the activation date of the 2007- 09 Rules of Hockey a ‘note’ was posted on the FIH website which announce that ‘gains benefit’ would continue to apply as it had in 2006, so ‘gains benefit’ was not in effect deleted until January 2009  i.e. on issue of the 2009-11 Rules of Hockey sans ‘gained benefit’ or any substitute for it. ‘Gains benefit’ was not restored in 2011-13 and has not been restored to the current Rules 2013 – 15.

The Discussion 

Debate about the meaning of ‘voluntarily’ resulted in the opinions below – expressed over two separate threads, made six months apart, on a hockey related website – from an International level umpire, who uses the tag Bondy. Aside from the opening post I have reproduced only the posts that Bondy put up – most of them contain quotes in italics from other contributors which help a little to hang them together.

The first thread, from November 2011, was entitled Incidental foot.

JMZevans (The opening post)

I have scanned through the forum for some clarity on an old classic but would like to confirm a decision from the weekend. Situation as follows:

Attacker driving along the baseline and hits the ball towards the top of the D. Near the top it hits a defenders foot. Had the defender missed it then the ball would have travelled uninterrupted all the way to the sideline. Attackers shout for a PC, defenders shout that the ball would have gone off and would have been their side line ball.

Which is the correct decision??

.

Bondy

redumpire said: I assumed the ball hadn’t gone off the sideline and was still with the defender whose foot it had hit, in which case it’s play on…

Surely this would be a PC? It hit the defender’s foot, and he gained possession because of it. I know that he would have had the sideline hit, had it not hit his foot – but in the time that it takes for the ball to get to the sideline and for the defender to set up to take the hit, the attackers would have had the opportunity to set up their press. To me, that means that the defender has gained advantage from the foot in the circle, therefore you’ve got no option but to award a PC.

.

Bondy

redumpire said: Fair point, Bondy; let’s put it another way. If the ball hit a player’s foot somewhere near the middle of the pitch as the ball was on a trajectory to go over the sideline and that player was in acres of space, would you award a FH? I wouldn’t; so why would I award a PC?

 I completely agree that if you wouldn’t award a FH in midfield, you shouldn’t award a PC, but I believe that it has to be a FH. The defender is advantaged by getting the ball ‘right now’ in central field position, instead of getting a sideline hit in a few seconds, which would give the opposition time to set up a defensive press.

deegum said: Sorry alex, but Justin has said, there has been no offence at all. Therefore no FHA, PC, PS or anything. In fact the defence might sometimes gain an advantage,, but play on, still no offence.

I honestly don’t see how there’s no offence here – am I missing something that everyone else is thinking? The defender has stopped the ball with his foot, and in doing so, has gained an advantage (and therefore disadvantaged the opposition). Offence by the defender. It happens to be in the circle, so it’s a PC.

 To those who say that the defender hasn’t ‘voluntarily’ stopped the ball with his foot, he’s at least 15m from where the ball was hit, and one would assume he’s watching the ball. Therefore he’s had plenty of time to get out of the way, or use his stick to trap it… and because he’s chosen to do neither, it’s a voluntary (subtle difference from ‘intentional’) use of the foot. I know it’s a horrible soft PC, but I honestly think that you have to give it.

.

Bondy

redumpire said: We’ft have to have a good pre-match chat if ever we umpire together,,, or, you’l! have to change your views if you’re ever umpiring when I’m TD !!

 I think we should just hope that the defenders know how to trap!!

 Incidentally – Diligent, I’m right with you that if the ball HAD gone out, it’s definitely a sideline hit attack, because hitting the foot has led to the defender losing possession. I don’t believe that there’s any legitimate argument for PC in that situation… as opposed to when it stays in, there are two valid schools of thought (ie, PC or play on) – I’ll argue black and blue that it needs to be a PC, but those who argue play on have also got a valid argument (just slightly less valid, IMHO)

.

Bondy

Hacker said: Bondy, does your decision after if the “foot” happens at the top of the D with no attackers dose {as Diligent says above) or if it’s closer to the goaf line and attackers a bit nearer?

 No – because of the foot, the defender gets possession in space and therefore the ability to start a counter-attack, and easily attack down the centre or either side of the field. If it hadn’t hit the foot, they’ve still got possession, but it’s at the sideline, which means that the attackers have extra time to set a press and pressure the defence.

.

The following July there was a discussion about the correct decision if the ball was deliberately played into contact with an opponent and the meaning of the word ‘voluntarily’ was raised again. Bondy had become more extreme in his view and also more certain that he was right to penalise any ball/body contact (unless opponents could play on with advantage  - were not disadvantaged ) in spite of the fact that the discussion was about contacts intentionally forced (*) by opponents and ‘gained benefit’ or ‘gained advantage’, which he quotes, had finally ‘disappeared’ from the Rules of Hockey more than three years earlier.

(*)  After January 2011 forcing an opponent into a breach of Rule was deleted as an offence in itself.

.

Bondy

I believe that Justin, et al, are confusing “voluntary” and “involuntary” with “unintentional” and “intentional”. To my mind, a foot becomes “voluntary” when a player puts himself in a position where there is the potential that they will play the ball with the foot, ie – a defender comes to tackle an attacker, and ends up stopping the ball with his foot. He hasn’t intentionally done it, but because he’s put himself into position knowing there’s a chance he’ll kick it, it’s voluntary and therefore a free hit attack.

 Saying “Well, I tried to stop it hitting my foot because I tried to use my stick to make the tackle/trap/dribble/whatever” doesn’t make it involuntary – you’ve still put yourself in a position where there’s a reasonable chance of the ball hitting you – it’s unintentional, but it’s not involuntary. Frankly, any other interpretation is a fundamental change to the game, and goes against the whole principle that hockey stick and ball game.

I do agree that there’s a reasonable argument that the “find a foot” incidents are being blown incorrectly… but I also think that everyone expects it to be blown that way, and as far as I’m concerned, until a specific directive from FIH that the way it’s being blown is wrong (and the removal of manufactured fouls is a pretty strong indication that that’s not gonna happen any time soon), I’m going to keep givin what everyone’s happy with and not play-ons that everyone thinks are wrong.

From those five posts it is possible to construct a large number of pairs of related premises to construct syllogisms and reach conclusions. The problem will be consistency, because many of the statements Bondy makes are contradicted by others. Even the meaning of ‘everybody’ has changed significantly between first mention and last.

Using directly conflicting pairs is not entirely pointless as it is as useful to know what is not valid as what is. but premises that are different but supportive of each other (or at least not opposed) will also have to be found. The premises and conclusions from opinion and ‘practice’ (player expectation etc.) can then be paired with related phrase statements from the Rules of Hockey.  First it is necessary to list individual premises from the statements he made.

That could take a week. It’s an exercise a reader might like to try for themselves. A start could be made by determination of the meaning of the word ‘voluntarily’ in the context of the Rule Guidance, weighed against the asserted  ’acceptance of risk’  and the  imposition of penalty  (How does one justify penalty as a deterrent when the penalised action has been forced?) .  

An aside. It needs to be borne in mind that the ball/body contact Rule relates to all ball/body contact, not just to ball contact made with the feet. When assessing ‘acceptance of risk’ and ‘voluntarily’ one has to be aware of the possibility of the sort of  incident shown in the video. The defender  ’knew’ as he ran towards the ball, that it was possible that the player in possession of the ball would propel it towards his head: would it therefore be reasonable for the umpire to penalise the player hit?   Bondy “To my mind, a foot becomes “voluntary” when a player puts himself in a position where there is the potential that they will play the ball with the foot“.  Is that reasonable?  Is being hit with the ball ‘playing it’ if the contact is not intentional?  

What is different about the actions of a defender running towards a player in possession of the ball when the defender is hit by the propelled ball on the head or upper body rather than on the foot? The answer is likely to be “Nothing”,  the difference is in the action of the player propelling the ball – he raises it. When is  responsibility for his own voluntary action to be accepted by the player propelling the ball? Always? Never? Sometimes?  E.g. only outside the shooting circle even if the ball is flicked – a legal stroke in any open play? (The justification for raising a hit at a defender in the circle is often that it is legal to raise a shot hit at the goal – but clearly, for fairness and safety,  something more than just the legality of the stroke used is required of the player propelling the ball.)   Debate concerning forced ball/foot contact will always tend to shift towards arguments concerning the forcing of self-defence  (or endangerment), playing the ball towards an opponent’s head being an extreme example of playing the ball at any part of an opponent.  So how about a position, more than 5m from the ball – and possibly in the circle – when a defender is hit on the head with the ball – who is responsible – one player, both, neither? 

A dictionary definition: 

Voluntary adj.

1.  Done or undertaken of one’s own free will:    a voluntary decision to leave the job.

2.  Acting or done willingly and without constraint or expectation of reward:     a voluntary hostage; voluntary community work.

3.  Normally controlled by or subject to individual volition:    voluntary muscle contractions.

4.  Capable of making choices; having the faculty of will.

5.  Supported by contributions or charitable donations rather than by government appropriations:       voluntary hospitals.

6. Law
a.  Without legal obligation or consideration:   (consideration can be viewed as a legal term for payment; with money or goods or services)    a voluntary conveyance of property.

b.  Done deliberately; intentionally:      voluntary manslaughter.

Voluntarily  adv.
.
Synonyms:

voluntary,       intentional,          deliberate,           wilful,            willing.

These adjectives mean being or resulting from one’s own free will. 

Voluntary  implies the operation of unforced choice:         “Ignorance, when it is voluntary, is criminal” (Samuel Johnson).

Intentional applies to something undertaken to further a plan or realize an aim:              ”I will abstain from all intentional wrongdoing and harm” (Hippocratic Oath.

Deliberate stresses premeditation and full awareness of the character and consequences of one’s acts:          taking deliberate and decisive action.

Wilful implies deliberate, headstrong persistence in a self-determined course of action:       a wilful waste of time.

Willing suggests ready or cheerful acquiescence in the proposals or requirements of another:      ”The first requisite of a good citizen … is that he shall be able and willing to pull his weight”     (Theodore Roosevelt).

What is meant by the asserted ‘acceptance of risk’, and whether or not it is actually relevant to the application of this Rule, might also be considered.

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

.

Field Hockey Rules: Questions on dangerous play.

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.

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

Field Hockey. Ball Body Contact Rule – A Suggestion

Field Hockey Rules. Ball Body Contact. Forcing. Feet. Shot at goal.

(i) Field-players may not intentionally make contact with the ball with any part of the body.

ii) Players may not intentionally propel the ball at or into any part of the body of another player.

Unless a ball/body contact is clearly intentionally made or caused, play should continue except in the case of injury to a player hit with the ball.  Play should be restarted with a bully when there is a ‘no-fault’ stoppage for injury.

Exceptions.

An accidental ball body contact by a defender that directly prevents a goal when the ball is played by the stick of an attacker in the circle should result in the award of a penalty stroke – unless there has been a prior offence by a member of the attacking team.

An accidental ball body contact by a defender that prevents an own goal when the ball is not played by the stick of an attacker in the circle should result in the award of a penalty corner – unless there has been a prior offence by a member of the attacking team.

A player in possession of the ball, who makes accidental body contact with the ball may be penalised if the umpire considers that the action conferred an unfair advantage to that player or their team. Foot/ball contact in the opposition circle should be penalised if the attacking team retain possession of the ball or some other advantage is gained.

The proposal suggests the return of  limited ‘gains unfair benefit’ exceptions and sets out a forcing offence that is not presently covered by “other Rules” (following the transfer of forcing offences to other Rules which covered the same offence e.g. dangerous play). “Positioning with intention to” and “voluntarily” are terms – from the present Rule Guidance, that have been avoided deliberately, because both are vague.

The proposal also invites players to improve their passing and dribbling skills. It is not a skill to hit an opponent with the ball while attempting to pass it to a team-mate.

Why the suggestion?

Here is the relevant part of the current Guidance

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.

There appears to be repetition in the current  Rule Guidance, because playing the ball (in any way) is an intentional action. Voluntarily, means ‘willingly’ and is an odd choice because it is not quite the opposite of involuntarily (intentionally and unintentionally are clearly opposites) and it is the difference between an intentional and an unintentional action that is the crux of the Guidance. A player might be willing – given the choice -to accept being hit with the ball to prevent a goal but that does not necessarily mean that the player intentionally let the ball hit him or her or intended to play it with the body. Positioning with an intention to play the ball with the body is a deliberate action. There is a big difference between ‘voluntarily’ (willingly) and ‘deliberately’.:there is a significant difference in meaning between ‘intentionally’ and ‘deliberately’. 

What is obviously not being properly communicated is that an unintentional ball/body contact is not an offence. This is obvious because accidental and even forced contacts are resulting in the player hit being penalised.

All of the examples shown in the video clips below resulted in the award of a penalty corner. It would not be difficult to find another twenty-five, what is hard is finding one incident of foot/ball contact that is obviously intentional or an incident of clearly unintentional ball/body contact that is not penalised: even obviously deliberately forced and unavoidable foot/ball contact and clearly accidental contact results in the player hit with the ball being penalised (often after the ball has been illegally raised, even with the use of the prohibited ‘hard’ forehand edge hit)

.

.

The current Guidance, as has been pointed out previously by others, might be better written:-

 

The player commits an offence only if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball 

But starting the sentence with The player commits an offence if  might even be marginally worse than  The player only commits an offence if 

 

Both are poor communication of the intent of the Guidance because they both ‘plant’ “player commits an offence” which seems to be the only part of the  sentence that is read and retained.

 

The previous It is not an offence unless.…would possibly achieve a better understanding, but it doesn’t look as if many umpires are going to shift their perception voluntarily, They have positioned themselves with the intention of penalising any player who makes any ball/body contact in any way. Umpires refraining from intervention to penalise only when opponents can play on with a clear advantage is to treat an unintended ball/body contact as an offence – but such contact is not an offence.

 

The other ‘catch all’ (the first being the withdrawn but still applied ‘gains benefit or the substituted ‘disadvantage opponent’, ‘influence play or ‘effected play’ – all of which are used) is:-

 

if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way (by playing it with the hand foot or body).

 

I don’t have the slightest idea what “position themselves with the intention of” means in the context of this Rule Guidance or how such intention might be identified – unless it is assumed that if a player does make a ball/body contact while in a defensive position, they intended to be hit with the ball, evidenced only by the position they had taken up (between a shooter and the goal or between an opposing player in possession of the ball and another opposing player) – the Guidance creating a ‘catch-all’ or ‘Catch 22′ situation.

 

Is ‘positioning’ the offence or is there an assumption made that all ball body contact that occurs while a player is in a defensive position is intended: which might fit with ‘position with intention to’ ? If that is the case and that does seem to be so, it makes the rest of the Guidance redundant and disingenuous. 

I believe that position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way is intended to prohibit a player moving – for example by ‘diving’ or ‘dropping’ to the ground in front of an opponent with the ball to position so that a ball/body contact is inevitable. It is a foul – a ‘tackle’ or block with the body – committed from close range i.e. usually from within playing distance of the ball, and is a counterpart to obstruction – which is positioning the body between the ball and a close opponent to prevent the opponent playing the ball. That makes sense of the clause, not least because nowhere else in the Rules of Hockey is such an action, which is obviously illegal, prohibited. That such a prohibition should be mixed up with other ball/body contact Guidance is not surprising; there is still some mixing of obstructive ball shielding by a player in possession of the ball and third-party obstruction, which is quite a different thing, in the Guidance to the Obstruction Rule- although Guidance concerning these difference offences is not now as unclear as it once was.

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

Field Hockey Rules: Disadvantaged, benefit gained.

Field Hockey Rules. Unfair Benefit Gained. Disadvantaged.

Edited 2nd May 2013

In the Umpiring Section of the Rules of Hockey (which is where all the published umpire briefings and advice should be contained) under the heading

2  Applying the Rules.

there is a sub-heading  2.2.  Advantage  which advises:

a.    it is not necessary for every offence to be penalised when no benefit is gained by the offender ; unnecessary interruptions to the flow of the match cause undue delay and irritation

b.    when the Rules have been broken, an umpire must apply advantage if this is the most severe penalty

c.    possession of the ball does not automatically mean there is an advantage ; for advantage to apply, the player/team
with the ball must be able to develop their play

d.    having decided to play advantage, a second opportunity must not be given by reverting to the original penalty

The crux of the message is that the umpire has discretion about applying penalty when an Offence has been committed. There is a deviation introduced in clause (b) which refers to “when the Rules have been broken”, this is a deviation from clause (a) because a Breach of Rule may not necessarily be an Offence, We are given some examples in the Rules of Hockey of  Breaches of Rule (breaking of Rules) that are not offences, particularly in the Guidance to Rule 9.11 :-

Rule 9.11.  Field players must not stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their body.

It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player.The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball or if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way.

It is not an offence if the ball hits the hand holding the stick but would otherwise have hit the stick.

We may argue indefinitely about the difference between ‘voluntarily’ and ‘intentionally’ and what is meant by or if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way , because no one seems to know the answers, but both those clauses refer to actions that are Breaches of Rule but are not, or are not always, offences.

To continue :- “an umpire must apply advantage if this is the most severe penalty” to call the applying of advantage a more severe penalty seems to me an odd use of language, as what is meant is that penalty should not be applied. It might have been better put, “an umpire should not penalise an offence if doing so would disadvantage the team offended against.”

There is another potential source of confusion connected to this in the Penalties Section, where ironically the second sentence is along the lines I suggested above (which avoided the double negative).

12 Penalties
12.1 Advantage : a penalty is awarded only when a player or team has been disadvantaged by an opponent breaking the Rules.
If awarding a penalty is not an advantage to the team  which did not break the Rules, play must continue.(note ‘must’ not ‘may’)

The potential confusion is contained in “has been disadvantaged by an opponent breaking the Rules” when the only examples of a player being in breach of Rule and not at the same time committing an offence are:-

the exceptions given in Rule 9.11 mentioned above (which appear to be ignored)

the intentional playing of the ball over the base-line by a defender (a silly rule);

a defender, while attempting to use the stick to play the ball, hit below the knee from within 5m with a shot at the goal during a penalty corner (an unjust and dangerous rule)

The sentence would be better put “If awarding a penalty would be a disadvantage to the team offended against play must continue.

Being clear about what an Offence is and how it may or does differ from a Breach of Rule would go some way to sorting out the present muddle between advantage, not disadvantaged and gained benefit, as well as when and if a penalty ought to be applied. We could at least avoid this sort of nonsense

“Being forced, the defender’s foot contact with the ball was involuntary and unavoidable, but it disadvantaged an opponent and so a penalty corner was awarded.“  There is a Breach of Rule by the defender there, but no Offence and there should be no penalty, disadvantaging an opponent is not an Offence – players spend the entire playing time legitimately  trying to disadvantage their opponents – for an Offence there has to be either an illegal action or an action that is illegal in certain circumstances (which should be clearly set out) for example, intention.

The opposite is this “The defender stuck his leg out and deliberately kicked the ball but, as the attacker was able to regain possession of it and play on with advantage, a team penalty was not called for” (a personal penalty may however have followed after the event).

It has proved,to be extraordinarily difficult to get umpires to assimilate and accommodate the absence of the previous exception to the present Guidance to Rule 9.11.; an exception that was deleted firstly in 2006 and finally in 2009 (on this the third occasion this gained advantage or gained benefit exception clause has been removed. The previous time was in major rewrite of the rulebook in 1995/6 ).

The corresponding Rule of 1995/6 is I think an interesting contrast to the present version, although some of the same ambiguities and conflicts are present.

13.1.2    Use of body, hands, feet

A player shall not
a. stop the ball with the hand or catch it
There is nothing to prevent players using their  hands to protect themselves from dangerously raised balls.
b. intentionally stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry  the ball with any part of their bodies

It is not an offence if the ball hits the foot or body of a player unless that player:
• has moved into the path of the ball, or
• made no effort to avoid being hit, or
• was positioned with the clear intention of stopping the ball (with the body was added later)

Players should not be penalised when the ball is  played at them from a short distance.

c. use the foot or leg to support the stick in a tackle.

It was also of course an offence to force a ball contact on an opponent and to raise the ball at an opponent (it still is in some circumstances an offence to raise the ball at an opponent and ‘forcing’ ball/body contact is supposed to be covered by ‘other Rules’,but one would not know this from a casual reading of the 2013 rulebook).

Back to the present:

An involuntary  (unintentional) ball/body contact is a Breach of Rule(because the word intentionally has been removed from the Rule) but it is NOT an Offence and therefore there is no penalty stipulated for such Breach of Rule. There is currently no exception to that statement.  Advantaged gained, benefit gained, disadvantaged opponents,  PREVENTING A CERTAIN GOAL, are all irrelevant. The last a case of ‘throwing the baby out with the bathwater’ and an embarrassment that needs to be corrected with an amended gained unfair benefit clause in that case (and perhaps in only one other – an unintentional ball/body contact by a player who is in possession of the ball).

What to do with this following Guidance?

It is not an offence if the ball hits the hand holding the stick but would otherwise have hit the stick.

(better written  It is not an offence if the ball hits a hand holding the stick but would otherwise have hit the stick).

Delete it as covered by the Rule?

Rule 9.11.  Field players must not intentionally play the ball with any part of their body.

Job done, nothing more is needed for the Rule.

Rule Guidance could be added to cover an unintentional ball/body contact that prevents a certain goal, in the absence of a prior offence by opponents (such as a ball raised above a given height and/or from within a given distance at the player hit with the ball). Such body/ball contact should be penalised with a penalty stroke. Not to award a penalty stroke in such circumstances is likely to lead to reckless defending i.e. intentional self-endangerment. 

At this stage, a ‘mythology’ having developed about ‘acceptance of risk‘ and ‘positioning with the intention of using the body to play the ball‘ or ‘backing the stick with the body in case the ball is missed with the stick‘ which has led to the view that there is no such thing as an ‘on target’ dangerous shot at the goal,  it is necessary to point out in Guidance that an assumption of intent to use the body to play the ball based on prior positioning especially when it is beyond playing distance of the ball, is both unsound and unreasonable.

An ‘acceptance of risk’  is confined to acceptance that there is risk of unintentional dangerous play such as deflections and mis-hits (which should nonetheless be penalised) it does not include acceptance of a risk that the player hit will be deliberately targeted or that the ball will be played at them in a reckless way i.e. without consideration for the safety of other players on the part of the player propelling the ball.

In other Rule Guidance, to Rule 9.8. for example, umpires could usefully be reminded:- “A raised shot has to be made at goal, not deliberately (and/or dangerously) at a defender standing either in goal or between the goal and the striker“ (part in colour italics taken from The Lifted Ball  Gawley 2001). Which brings us to the need for a fit for purpose definition of a dangerously played ball, not least to avoid the circular arguments concerning what is and is not legitimate evasive action and how the umpire should respond when evasive action is not possible. 

.

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

Field Hockey Rules: Interwoven myths

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 1^st 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 Rules  http://wp.me/p3tNmd-3