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.
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. 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 playingthe 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 withThe 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.
Field Hockey Rules, Turning, Ball shielding, Obstruction.
Edited 1st February 2013
.
Here is part an not uncommon account by a former player, who took up umpiring full-time after a long break from the game, having previously ‘dabbled’ at umpiring over a number of years.
I first umpired back in 1975 for a friendly game between 2 hospital teams. Over the intervening years I’ve umpired on a part-time basis at club level whilst still playing. Having had a break from hockey (work, marriage and family) I returned in 1999 when my eldest son started playing. I figured the quickest way to learn the new rules (no offside, no turning obstruction , etc) was to pass my Level 1; which I did. From then until 3 seasons ago I played and usually umpired a club match as well every Saturday. The last 2 seasons I’ve become a full-time umpire doing mainly club matches
.
This caught my attention – naturally.
I figured the quickest way to learn the new rules (no offside, no turning obstruction , etc) was to pass my Level 1; which I did.
The apparent absence of an Obstruction Rule, related to ball shielding by turning on the ball, is seen by this poster in the same way as the deletion of the off-side Rule. How can that be ?
How did he pass an umpiring Level 1 around 1999 if he believed there was then no Rule concerning ”turning obstruction” ?
This may not have been uncommon at the time because of the convoluted Interpretation given in the rule book, which caused much confusion, but it should not still be the case. In an attempt to make clear that ‘turning’, as it is commonly called, was and still is an obstructive offence, a clause relating specifically to this action (a player in possession of the ball moving to position the body between the ball and an opponent) was added to the Obstruction Rule in 2009. It was the only addition to the Rules of Hockey in that year, so difficult to miss, but most umpires apparently managed to do so – or were told to ignore it. (many if not most umpires had given up on trying to make sense of what was called the PIT interpretation)
(that, incidentally, was the year the ‘gains benefit’ clause – the one umpires still insist on applying - was clearly definitely not going to be returned to the Rules of Hockey, despite its retention during 2007-2009 due to a ‘FIH note’ issued within a month of its initial deletion from the 2007 rule book – again umpires are following verbal instruction rather than observing the deletion. The deletion should not have been made, there should instead have been amendment to the Guidance: but that is another story ) http://wp.me/pKOEk-xj
Here is the current Obstruction Rule with the embedded Guidance (except for that relating to third-party, which is omitted for brevity). The part in red bold is the clause extension added in 2009.
9.12 Players must not obstruct an opponent who is attempting to play the ball.
Players obstruct if they :
– back into an opponent
– physically interfere with the stick or body of an opponent
– shield the ball from a legitimate tackle with their stick or any part of their body.
A stationary player receiving the ball is permitted to face in any direction.
A player with the ball is permitted to move off with it in any direction except bodily into an opponent or into a position between the ball and an opponent who is within playing distance of the ball and attempting to play it.
I think it common sense to interpret “ a player in possession of the ball…. is permitted to move off with it in any direction except…..into a a position between the ball and an opponent….etc” as a prohibition on turning, on or with the ball, to position the body to shield the ball from an opponent who is in a balanced position, demonstrating an intention to play it and is within playing reach of it, in other words, but for the positioning of the body by the ball holder an opponent would be able to play at the ball immediately (‘but for the positioning of the body by the ball holder an opponent would be able to play at the ball immediately‘ is as concise a ‘rule of thumb’ definition of ‘obstructed’as I have been able to find in previous FIH publications and it is still relevant and useful as a heuristic when the tacker is his own goal side of the ball). I would be interested to learn of other possible interpretation of the words of the expanded clause taken together with ‘attempting to play at the ball’ and ‘within playing distance’ .
Is obstruction difficult for players to cope with? Yes it is, it demands some skill. In order to comply with the Rules players have to develop the skills necessary to face and ‘take on’ opponents or move the ball or move with the ball to keep it out of the reach of opponents – doing these things well results in ’game flow’ and that is one of the most attractive features of good hockey. An analogy of the difficulty could be taken from tennis. The sever in tennis is at a disadvantage until he learns to serve well consistently, then he has the advantage rather than a disadvantage when it is his serve. In hockey the tackler has a distinct advantage until the novice becomes competent in ball control and dribbling: then the ball holder has the advantage. With skilled players, without proper enforcement of the Obstruction Rule – and with physical contact prohibited (Rule 9.13) – an opponent trying to tackle for the ball is unfairly disadvantaged.
That there is now no Rule prohibiting shielding of the ball is presently a notion as widely, but wrongly accepted or unchallenged *, as the oft repeated but also incorrect ‘mantra’ – ”an on target shot at the goal cannot be dangerous play” and “any ball/foot contact will be of benefit to the player hit – or disadvantages opponents “- (and is therefore an offence and should be penalised – unless opponents can play on with advantage). Such disinformation is wrong and pernicious, where does it come from? It is certainly not from the current Rules of Hockey.
*(Many umpires are unable to describe an incident of obstruction – without physical contact – that they would penalise ; they don’t know what it is they should be looking for as a breach of the Rule)
The only difference between the Obstruction Rule we now have and that of 1975, is that now a player in the act of receiving the ball (generally from the his rear, the direction of his own defence) – and shielding it from a marker – who is within playing distance of the ball – while doing so, is given leeway to take the ball into control before moving away with it. i.e. he is not, as he would have been prior to 1993, obstructing immediately an opponent demonstrates the direct path to the ball is blocked by the player in possession of the ball and a tackle attempt is being prevented.
On the other hand, a player who is in controlled possession of the ball, who turns to position his body between the ball and an opponent within playing distance of the ball, to prevent a tackle attempt, is obstructing immediately he does so - or obstructs jf he does not, having so turned to that position, immediately move off with the ball – or pass it away – that is moves away or passes away before an opponent intent on tackling for the ball comes within playing distance of it and attempts to play the ball.
In effect a player may receive the ball, even in a stationary position and is then “permitted to move off with it“, that is move away to put and keep the ball beyond the reach of an opponent – but may not otherwise shield the ball to prevent a tackle attempt. Such shielding frustrates a tackler and greatly increases the possibility of a contact offence.
In practice a receiver is not now required to make a lead run when closely marked to ‘lose’ his marker and make time and space in which to receive the ball, as was generally necessary up until 1992/3, unless he was already in free space. This facility to receive the ball in a protected way enabled the tactical development of the game (particularly the back -pass) and reduced the number of obstruction offences ‘called’, (as well as reducing physical contact by tacklers), but it was not intended to allow the now common stationary ball shielding, ‘turning’ ’crabbing’ and ‘dawdling’ on the ball in blocking positions – by players already in controlled possession of the ball – which so mar the modern game, sometimes even at the top levels.
What has now gone – in two stages, 2001 and 2004 – (and ‘good riddance’ to it) – is the ridiculous ”onus on the tackler” …..” to be in and if necessary to move to a position from which a legitimate tackle may be attempted“ which effectively made obstruction by a ball holder who was shielding the ball in a stationary or near stationary position (usually slowly weaving from side to side), while moving the ball, a near impossibility, because a legitimate tackling position could never be achieved, as continual re-positioning of the ball or body to maintain shielding (i.e. obstruction) prevented it. (That there was an ’onus’ or responsibility on players in possession of the ball not to obstruct an opponent within playing distance of the ball and intent on tackling was not mentioned in this interpretation of the Obstruction Rule). Opponents who could not tackle because they were blocked off from the ball were said in effect not to be obstructed, because they were unable to circumvent the blocking player to play at the ball without physical contact with the ball-holder – but the fact that they were obliged to circumvent a player blocking the direct path to the ball in order to attempt a tackle meant that they were obstructed – a conundrum.
Despite the impossible situation it created, this ‘onus on the tackler’ (but not, strangely, on the player in possession of the ball) is what umpire coaches, who ‘did’ their Rules at the time that that obstruction interpretation was extant, are still passing on - in spite of the complete removal of it from the Rules of Hockey nine years ago. The current obstruction Rule is exactly as it was in 1992/3 (when leeway for a receiving player was added), except for the addition of the 2009 clause (on a ball holder positioning the body between an opponent and the ball).
It’s much easier, however, to umpire and be consistent when obstructive play is ignored, as the necessary judgements, of timing and distance, are often difficult. (To get an idea of the difficulties consider what a ‘pig’s ear’ umpires make of judging 5m, especially from distance and with a foreshorten view, when dealing with the quickly taken self-pass and retreating defenders – which difficulties umpires have ironically have invited on themselves by ‘interpretation’). But what could be more consistent than doing nothing about obstructive play? A great way to achieve ‘Rule change’ and consistency – just ignore the Rule.
It seems that all a new umpire (or a player) has to do to know the Rules these days is to know which deletions are still in fact regarded as being ‘on foot’ and what new interpretations or Guidance inventions have arisen since the last FIH Tournament – and they will be told what these are as and when the information is ‘cascaded’ : gossip rules. What is actually written in the published Rules of Hockey can often be ‘safely’ ignored – and in some areas, such as ball/body contact, dangerous play and obstruction, it generally is.
How often are we to hear the excuse ”No, I agree that is not what it says in the rule book but that is the way I have been coached to umpire.” and why is that?
I find it very counterproductive when people keep bringing up the “shot striking a defender closer than 5 meter above the knee is dangerous” rule, as this ONLY applies to (otherwise legitimately) raised balls on the goal at a PC. this does not apply in other situations.
what is true, however, is that danger depends on the skill level of those involved.
The above are comments posted by an umpire on an Internet hockey forum thread about the raising of the ball high at another player in the outfield – specifically the scooping of the ball at or very close to an opponent who is closing on the player in possession. The initial poster had, rightly, made the observation that the introduction of the facility to directly lift the ball from a free should have reduced or eliminated such incidents (because an opponent could not encroach within 5m before a scoop was made from a free ball). It was pointed out however that there is nothing to prohibit a self-pass being followed immediately with a scoop pass and scoops are also made in open play.
This umpire’s comments are however misguided and misguidance. It is true that the first hit shot at the goal at a penalty corner cannot be scored from if raised above knee height (460mm), and if a raised shot, however made, hits a defender who is within 5m of the ball, above knee height then a free ball will be (or should be) awarded to the defending team (in fact a free should be awarded to the defence if an out-runner evades a shot raised above 460mm to avoid being hit with the ball) and, conversely, a player hit below the knee with a first shot at the goal will be penalised with the award of another penalty corner. But, according to the provided Rule Guidance (Rule 9.9), if, in open play, a ball is raised to any height towards an opponent who is within 5m that is considered dangerous play.
These are the two Rules concerning dangerous playing of the ball ( I will leave aside here consideration of the falling aerial pass).
Rule 9.8. Players must not play the ball dangerously or in a way which leads to dangerous play. A ball is considered dangerous when it causes legitimate evasive action by players.
Which (oddly) says nothing about either height or distance or about velocity in relation to a dangerously played ball (there is no cut-off distance beyond which dangerous playing of the ball at an opponent is not a possibility i.e. legitimate evasive action is not distance limited)
and
The Guidance embedded with Rule 9.9, (a Rule which concerns the intentional raising of the ball with a hit).
Rule 9.9 Players must not intentionally raise the ball from a hit except for a shot at goal.
A raised hit must be judged explicitly on whether or not it is raised intentionally. It is not an offence to raise the ball unintentionally from a hit, including a free hit, anywhere on the fi eld unless it is dangerous.
If the ball is raised over an opponent’s stick or body on the ground, even within the circle, it is permitted unless judged to be dangerous.
Players are permitted to raise the ball with a flick or scoop provided it is not dangerous. A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous.(my underlining. This ‘remnant’ is all that is left of the Rule:- A player shall not raise the ball at another player.,which was in the rule book until the ‘simplification and clarification’ of the Rules in 2004 )
If an opponent is clearly running into the shot or into the attacker without attempting to play the ball with their stick, they should be penalised for dangerous play. (my bold and underling. This conflicting clause was added to the Rules of Hockey before the Athens Olympics following the tactics of the Korean team in a previous Tournament when defending a penalty corner. It has ‘expanded’ to the point where no ‘on target’ shot at the goal is considered dangerous and closing down on a shooter from within the goal at a penalty corner is seen – ‘interpreted’ -as an offence, irrespective or an attempt to use the stick to intercept the ball. The concept has been encapsulated in the jargon ‘Suicide runner’ – which removes the need to explain any ‘offence’. )
Why direction to players and umpires concerning a flick or scoop towards an opponent should be given in a Rule about the intentional raising of the ball with a hit is a mystery. What should be noticed however is that there is no reference to the height of the ball in this Rule Guidance – In Rule 9.8 the embedded Guidance refers to a subjective judgement, the legitimacy of evasive action, in Rule 9.9.the embedded Guidance refers to objective criteria, 1) raised ball 2) towards an opponent who is 3) within 5m
The knee height allowance for a shot towards a player in the penalty corner situation is actually greater than should be generally allowed in open play incidents. (The UMB advises umpires that a ball “below half-shin pad height” is not dangerous; it must be taken from that advice that a ball which is above half-shin pad height – i.e. 25cms – 30cms and towards another player within 5m is to be considered dangerous or may be considered dangerous). The comment in the first paragraph above says nothing either way, only that the Rules concerning the penalty corner (sic first hit shot at goal) do not apply in other situations, but the inference seems to be that ‘knee height’ applies only in the penalty corner situation and there is otherwise no height restriction on a ball propelled towards another player i.e. the matter of danger is entirely a matter of umpire judgement (of legitimate evasive action) alone.
In fact the opposite is nearer the truth, the Rule Guidance about a dangerously played ball is more severe in open play than it is in relation to the first hit shot at a penalty corner – not less so – any lifting of the ball towards a close opponent is considered dangerous play. It is as likely that ball velocity will be a consideration as it is that ball height may be in judging the legitimacy of any evasive action taken, but nowhere is ball velocity mentioned in the Rules (except perhaps that a forehand edge hit may not be ‘hard’ or a goalkeeper may not propel a ball ‘forcefully’ with a hand protector).
It is strange that the Guidance to Rule 9.8. – on legitimate evasive action – is noted ( even if generally ignored) but participants seem to be unaware of the Guidance to Rule 9.9. concerning the flicking or scooping a ball towards another player who is within 5m of the ball (it is even stranger that in a Rule that is about the raising of the ball with a hit and in which dangerous play is described the raising the ball with a hit at an opponent is not mentioned. Perhaps it is assumed, by common sense, that a raised hit at a close player will be considered dangerous play, because a flick towards a close opponent is so considered ?)
There are a few other oddities arising from the Guidance to Rule 9.9. Take this for example:-
It is not an offence to raise the ball unintentionally from a hit, including a free hit, anywhere on the field unless it is dangerous.
and note the similarity to this (from Rule 9.11 – the ball/body contact Rule) :-
It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a fi eld player. The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball or if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way.
then consider the difference in the way the Guidance about an unintentionally raised hit – and even a deliberately raised hit, that is not a shot at the goal, is applied, compared with the way Guidance concerning unintentional ball/body contacts is applied.
Then there is this Rule Guidance:-
If an opponent is clearly running into the shot or into the attacker without attempting to play the ball with their stick, they should be penalised for dangerous play. itis the only Guidance repeated in the Rules of Hockey, it also appears in the Rules concerning the penalty corner. Like the Guidance to the ball/body contact Rule (where intent is overlooked), a vital part of it is generally ignored i.e. -without attempting to play the ball with their stick. There is no Rule or Guidance that states that a player cannot close on an opponent in possession of the ball from anywhere on the pitch (including directly from within the goal during a penalty corner). The Rule Guidance is aimed specifically at players who deliberately use their bodies to intercept the ball, not at players who attempt to play the ball with the stick, but this Guidance is so badly applied that a myth that it is an offence to run from the center of the goal towards a shooter in possession of the ball has become deeply entrenched in the ‘mindset’ of not only players but many umpires too.
The second comment
what is true, however, is that danger depends on the skill level of those involved.
It is NOT true that danger depends on the skill level of those involved. People have come to accept such nonsense without thinking about what the statement means, in the same way that they accept that 2+2 =4, it is simply learned or accepted without reflection. Close examination of danger depends on the skill level of those involved in the context of a principal of Rule application, reveals that the statement must be a fallacy because it states in effect that skilled players cannot ever be endangered by any ball that is propelled at them. Responsibility for causing endangerment is also taken from the player propelling the ball and laid on the player the ball is propelled at – not at all what the Rules of Hockey require.
What is true is that experienced and alert defenders may be able to avoid or even play with the stick, balls that have been played at them in a way that endangers them, i.e. forces self-defence to avoid injury – and it is also true that a necessary act of evasion is supposed to define a dangerously played ball. What is being asserted is that skilled players do not need in any circumstances to evade a ball that is propelled at them or if they do evade the ball then the ball could not have been propelled in a dangerous way. That is obviously a nonsense as it is an inversion of the definition of a dangerously played ball and there are also plenty of examples of highly skilled players being injured with the ball they have been unable to evade or to play. But, if legitimate evasive action is to be removed as as a valid criteria for dangerous play, which is what the ‘skill level’ statement implies, something has to be put in its place when a ball is raised at high velocity at another player - from both within and beyond beyond 5m of that player. The alternative is to declare that players cannot be endangered by a ball propelled towards them from beyond 5m (which is close to the current attitude) and also to go along with the idea that skillful players cannot be endangered in any circumstances. In the circumstances being commented upon (a player closing on another who flicks or scoops the ball towards the closing player) the Guidance embedded in Rule 9.9 should be a sufficient safeguard, but it cannot be if it is ignored.
A ball that is propelled at high velocity high into the body (or at the head) of any player, no matter how skilled that player may be, will endanger that player (put her or him at risk of injury). That the player so endangered has the skill or the luck to avoid injury does not make the play of the player who propelled the ball ‘non-dangerous’. That skilled players cannot be endangered by a ball raised at them is part of the same flawed ‘logic’ that declares that a shot at the goal cannot be dangerous play and obviously makes no sense.
Such nonsense – if accepted – is counter productive in that it prevents a clear understanding and application of Rules, but then so too is the confusing way in which Rules concerning dangerous play are set out in the Rules of Hockey: the present confusing statements do not produce a clear understanding of what is written or of the intent of the Rule.
There is a reliance on the ‘common sense’ (‘interpretation’ and subjective judgement) of umpires, but there is no more evidence that umpires have a common sense of what is dangerous play (or even that they are aware of A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous.) or that they will apply their ‘common sense’, than there is that players will play responsibly and with regard for the safety of other players. There are many who say that the above mentioned concepts of dangerous play are outdated or outmoded and that we should “move on”, but this Rule Guidance is in the current (2013-15) Rules of Hockey, and it is never made clear by the people who advocate ‘moving on’ what it is we should ‘move on’ to. They are unable to or won’t put a description of what they want – and are applying – in writing, if players are to remain responsible, as they must be, for actions they take that endanger other players the requirements need to be clearly explained.
For the moment I would rather that a ball raised to knee height or above and at a player within 5m of the ball at the time it was raised, should be considered dangerous, than rely on the notion that danger depends of the skill level of the players involved and that there is no limit on the ball raised at an opponent in open play – especially as the skill seems to be demanded only from the player the ball is raised at, not from the player propelling the ball.
The interpretation of A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous cannot be that a ball raised at a close opponent cannot be dangerous or that “dangerous” or “endangered” depends on skill levels. It is certainly true that the Rule Guidance embedded in Rule 9.9. is so severe, especially as neither height or velocity are mentioned, that most umpires will refuse to enforce it – hence the advice from the UMB that a ball below half-shin pad height is not dangerous (no distance or velocity mentioned) – but to deduce from this advice that there is no height criteria at all in the judgement of ‘dangerous’ outside the penalty corner demonstrates a lack of both knowledge and of common sense – it is a leap from one extreme to another – not sensible at all.
The need for the introduction of clear height criterion for use in the judgement of the raised ball, be it from within 5m of an opponent or from beyond 5m of an opponent, coupled with advice concerning velocity and the propensity of the ball to cause injury or force self-defence if it is propelled at another player, is obvious. This has been stated many times; such a statement was contained in the first sentence of Umpire Coaching document on the raised ball produced in 2001 by John Gawley (then a Level 3 Umpire Coach). The revised document (2005), despite what is given in the UBM, contains exactly the same advice.
No player should ever be put into a position of self-defence against a ball put into the air at any height, be it 15 or 50 centimeters.
The present conflicts are clear, what is to be done to resolve them is not – at the moment it looks as if that will be nothing at all.
Field Hockey Rules. Voluntarily playing the ball with the body.
A small but representative sample of current umpiring practice in the application of Rule Guidance to Rule 9.11.
Rule 9.11 Field players must not stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their body.
Any ball/body contact will be a breach of this Rule but such contact is only a Breach of Rule, not an Offence, unless the contact is made in a way that conforms with the conditions given in the Rule Guidance – voluntarily played with the body or (the very odd) positioned with the intention of playing the ball with the body.
I don’t understand why a) voluntarily played with the body and b) positioned with the intention of playing the ball with the body. are both given. If the ball isintentionally played with the body the player must have been positioned where that could happen and if the player positions the body with the intention of playing the ball with the body that must be done voluntarily. If the ball is not played with the body that cannot be an Offence or even a Breach of the Rule – even if there was an intention to play the ball with the body. I do not see how therefore the positioning of a player or even positioning with intent to make a ball/body contact can be considered a ball contact Offence or even a Breach of Rule 9.11., in and of itself. (Positioning Offences generally relate to Rule 9.12. Obstruction)
Rule Guidance. It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player. The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball or if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way.
The Rule and the embedded Rule Guidance are to be read together as a whole, not in isolation from each other.
Current application appears to follow part of the following advice (gleaned from UK County Umpires Association Handbook in 2011):- “The notes to the foot body rule 9.11 say it is an offence ‘only’ when contact with the ball is ‘voluntary’, but in practice an accidental contact that alters the balance of play is just as much an offence as deliberately playing with foot or body.
This is just one example of interpreting rules consistently with your partner and with other umpires the teams will have. Sometimes their interpretation will differ from how the rule seems, to you, to read. But you must umpire play their way, and never apply your own version. If that leaves you uncomfortable then a bit of lateral thinking should soon enough make the same sense of it for you as it does for everyone else.”
That and similar such advice is not followed exactly, umpires often go beyond it. Even contact forced by an opponent or accidental contact, where there is clearly no advantage gained by the player hit with the ball, is generally penalised ‘automatically’ – this has become a reflex action, not a judgement.
Umpires who at first feel that the ‘interpretation’ applied by ‘everyone’ is unfair or contrary to the Rules of Hockey or contrary to common sense are told :- “Sometimes their interpretation will differ from how the rule seems, to you, to read. But you must umpire play their way, and never apply your own version. If that leaves you uncomfortable then a bit of lateral thinking should soon enough make the same sense of it for you as it does for everyone else.” (and they generally are ‘told’, such instructions it must be appreciated are very rarely given in writing).
Such application is then justified because ‘everyone ‘ umpires in that way so they “mustbe umpiring in the way that ‘the FIH’ wants them to” to quote the oft used circular reasoning. That may be so, I don’t know the name of the individual who is referred to as ‘the FIH‘, but from the wording of the Rule Guidance it clearly isn’t the way in which the FIH Rules Committee (the sole Rule Authority) intend this Rule to be applied.
The first sentence of the Rule Guidance It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field playermay be out of date now as it was not altered when the ‘gains benefit’ exception to the Guidance was withdrawn. If it had been updated it should read It is not an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player. The player commits an offence only if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ballbecause there is not now an exception to justify the word always,that should have been deleted. But, as can be seen, from the instructions given to Level One candidates by the Umpire Coach quoted above there is a reluctance (or refusal) to accept that ‘gains benefit’ has been deleted. (This refusal is based on a note posted on the FIH website in February 2007, three weeks after the issue of thew 2007-9 Rules of Hockey, which apparently restored the deleted Guidance clause. But this appears to have been an unconstitutional act which may have upset the members of the FIH Rules Committee,the clause was not restored to the Rules of Hockey in the 2009-11 or 2011-13 or 2013-15 issues of the rule book. Six years on it must be assumed that the FIH Rules Committee do not intend that it will be – at least not in its previous form.).
How this ….or if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way.is to be judged remains unexplained. The meaning of the words is clear but the context in which they are to be applied is not. For example: – how can any player who is beyond playing distance of the ball be seen to be positioning with the intention of stopping the ball in a certain way?
It is, I think, reasonable to assume that this clause applies to actions taken by a tackler who is within playing distance of the ball; actions such as diving into or across an opponent who is in possession of the ball. It certainly seems unreasonable – assuming the player in question is in a normal playing stance – to ask an umpire to determine the ball playing intentions of a defender who is positioned or positioning beyond playing distance of the ball; what would be the criteria to watch for – other than not in possession of a hockey stick?
It also seems unreasonable to assume that because a player is hit with the ball he or she intended to be so hit or deliberately positioned with that intention – unless of course the player clearly made no attempt to use the stick to play the ball when they could reasonably have attempted to do so. Failure to play the ball with the stick, when there was a genuine attempt to do so, cannot reasonably be seen as an intention to play the ball with the body (but from the evidence in the video clips, it is most often seen in that way).
Field Hockey Rules. Unfair Benefit Gained. Disadvantaged.
Edited 2nd May 2013
In the Umpiring Section of the Rules of Hockey (which is where all the published umpire briefings and advice should be contained) under the heading
2 Applying the Rules.
there is a sub-heading 2.2. Advantagewhich advises:
a. it is not necessary for every offence to be penalised when no benefit is gained by the offender ; unnecessary interruptions to the flow of the match cause undue delay and irritation
b. when the Rules have been broken, an umpire must apply advantage if this is the most severe penalty
c. possession of the ball does not automatically mean there is an advantage ; for advantage to apply, the player/team with the ball must be able to develop their play
d. having decided to play advantage, a second opportunity must not be given by reverting to the original penalty
The crux of the message is that the umpire has discretion about applying penalty when an Offence has been committed. There is a deviation introduced in clause (b) which refers to “when the Rules have been broken”, this is a deviation from clause (a) because a Breach of Rule may not necessarily be an Offence, We are given some examples in the Rules of Hockey of Breaches of Rule (breaking of Rules) that are not offences, particularly in the Guidance to Rule 9.11 :-
Rule 9.11. Field players must not stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their body.
It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player.The player only commits an offenceif they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball or if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way.
It is not an offence if the ball hits the hand holding the stick but would otherwise have hit the stick.
We may argue indefinitely about the difference between ‘voluntarily’ and ‘intentionally’ and what is meant by or if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way , because no one seems to know the answers, but both those clauses refer to actions that are Breaches of Rule but are not, or are not always, offences.
To continue :- “an umpire must apply advantage if this is the most severe penalty” to call the applying of advantage a more severe penalty seems to me an odd use of language, as what is meant is that penalty should not be applied. It might have been better put, “an umpire should not penalise an offence if doing so would disadvantage the team offended against.”
There is another potential source of confusion connected to this in the Penalties Section, where ironically the second sentence is along the lines I suggested above (which avoided the double negative).
12 Penalties 12.1 Advantage : a penalty is awarded only when a player or team has been disadvantaged by an opponent breaking the Rules. If awarding a penalty is not an advantage to the team which did not break the Rules, play must continue.(note ‘must’ not ‘may’)
The potential confusion is contained in “has been disadvantaged by an opponent breaking the Rules” when the only examples of a player being in breach of Rule and not at the same time committing an offence are:-
the exceptions given in Rule 9.11 mentioned above (which appear to be ignored)
the intentional playing of the ball over the base-line by a defender (a silly rule);
a defender, while attempting to use the stick to play the ball, hit below the knee from within 5m with a shot at the goal during a penalty corner (an unjust and dangerous rule)
The sentence would be better put “If awarding a penalty would be a disadvantage to the team offended against play must continue.
Being clear about what an Offence is and how it may or does differ from a Breach of Rule would go some way to sorting out the present muddle between advantage, not disadvantaged and gained benefit, as well as when and if a penalty ought to be applied. We could at least avoid this sort of nonsense
“Being forced, the defender’s foot contact with the ball was involuntary and unavoidable, but it disadvantaged an opponent and so a penalty corner was awarded.“ There is a Breach of Rule by the defender there, but no Offence and there should be no penalty, disadvantaging an opponent is not an Offence – players spend the entire playing time legitimately trying to disadvantage their opponents – for an Offence there has to be either an illegal action or an action that is illegal in certain circumstances (which should be clearly set out) for example, intention.
The opposite is this “The defender stuck his leg out and deliberately kicked the ball but, as the attacker was able to regain possession of it and play on with advantage, a team penalty was not called for” (a personal penalty may however have followed after the event).
It has proved,to be extraordinarily difficult to get umpires to assimilate and accommodate the absence of the previous exception to the present Guidance to Rule 9.11.; an exception that was deleted firstly in 2006 and finally in 2009 (on this the third occasion this gained advantage or gained benefit exception clause has been removed. The previous time was in major rewrite of the rulebook in 1995/6 ).
The corresponding Rule of 1995/6 is I think an interesting contrast to the present version, although some of the same ambiguities and conflicts are present.
13.1.2 Use of body, hands, feet
A player shall not a. stop the ball with the hand or catch it There is nothing to prevent players using their hands to protect themselves from dangerously raised balls. b. intentionally stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their bodies
It is not an offence if the ball hits the foot or body of a player unless that player: • has moved into the path of the ball, or • made no effort to avoid being hit, or • was positioned with the clear intention of stopping the ball (with the body was added later)
Players should not be penalised when the ball is played at them from a short distance.
c. use the foot or leg to support the stick in a tackle.
It was also of course an offence to force a ball contact on an opponent and to raise the ball at an opponent (it still is in some circumstances an offence to raise the ball at an opponent and ‘forcing’ ball/body contact is supposed to be covered by ‘other Rules’,but one would not know this from a casual reading of the 2013 rulebook).
Back to the present:
An involuntary (unintentional) ball/body contact is a Breach of Rule(because the word intentionally has been removed from the Rule) but it is NOT an Offence and therefore there is no penalty stipulated for such Breach of Rule. There is currently no exception to that statement. Advantaged gained, benefit gained, disadvantaged opponents, PREVENTING A CERTAIN GOAL, are all irrelevant. The last a case of ‘throwing the baby out with the bathwater’ and an embarrassment that needs to be corrected with an amended gained unfair benefit clause in that case (and perhaps in only one other – an unintentional ball/body contact by a player who is in possession of the ball).
What to do with this following Guidance?
It is not an offence if the ball hits the hand holding the stick but would otherwise have hit the stick.
(better written It is not an offence if the ball hits a hand holding the stick but would otherwise have hit the stick).
Delete it as covered by the Rule?
Rule 9.11. Field players must not intentionally play the ball with any part of their body.
Job done, nothing more is needed for the Rule.
Rule Guidance could be added to cover an unintentional ball/body contact that prevents a certain goal, in the absence of a prior offence by opponents (such as a ball raised above a given height and/or from within a given distance at the player hit with the ball). Such body/ball contact should be penalised with a penalty stroke. Not to award a penalty stroke in such circumstances is likely to lead to reckless defending i.e. intentional self-endangerment.
At this stage, a ‘mythology’ having developed about ‘acceptance of risk‘ and ‘positioning with the intention of using the body to play the ball‘ or ‘backing the stick with the body in case the ball is missed with the stick‘ which has led to the view that there is no such thing as an ‘on target’ dangerous shot at the goal, it is necessary to point out in Guidance that an assumption of intent to use the body to play the ball based on prior positioning especially when it is beyond playing distance of the ball, is both unsound and unreasonable.
An ‘acceptance of risk’ is confined to acceptance that there is risk of unintentional dangerous play such as deflections and mis-hits (which should nonetheless be penalised) it does not include acceptance of a risk that the player hit will be deliberately targeted or that the ball will be played at them in a reckless way i.e. without consideration for the safety of other players on the part of the player propelling the ball.
In other Rule Guidance, to Rule 9.8. for example, umpires could usefully be reminded:- “A raised shot has to be made at goal, not deliberately (and/or dangerously) at a defender standing either in goal or between the goal and the striker“ (part in colour italics taken from The Lifted Ball Gawley 2001). Which brings us to the need for a fit for purpose definition of a dangerously played ball, not least to avoid the circular arguments concerning what is and is not legitimate evasive action and how the umpire should respond when evasive action is not possible.
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.
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.
I am perplexed that following the deletion of the ‘forcing’ of an breach of Rule by an opponent as an offence in itself, the transfer of the penalising of forcing offences in field hockey to “other Rules” (to quote from the Rules of Hockey) -, which are supposed to cover the same prohibited actions, such as playing the ball into an opponent’s foot, or making a ‘pass’ in such a way that it unavoidably strikes an opponent – these same actions should be now seen by some as a skill. Forcing actions, the forcing of obstruction or the forcing of self-defence (‘legitimate evasive action because of dangerous play) and the forcing of ball/body contact are still (at least according to the Rule Guidance) offences. They remain offences under intimidation and dangerous play Rules.
Hitting an opponent with the ball clearly demonstrates a lack of skill, unless it is done deliberately and deliberately playing the ball at or into an opponent, in any way whatsoever, is as much against the intent and ‘spirit of the Rules’ as any intentional ‘playing’ (stopping, intercepting, deflecting, propelling) of the ball with the body. That is a balance that ‘fair play’ demands. The only legitimate contact is between stick and ball (and of course between a player and the playing surface).
Deliberately propelling the ball at or into an opponent and hitting that opponent should not be rewarded with a penalty against the player hit – that encourages such ‘play’ – if the player propelling the ball in this way is not penalised, because there is doubt about his or her intention, then following the deletion of forcing as an offence (and provided the player hit has not been injured) play should continue. Current ‘practice’ seems to be the other way around, to penalise the player hit with the ball unless the player who propelled the ball, the opponent, can play on with advantage. This is completely backwards, and contrary to Rule, because unless a player who is hit with the ball allows the ball to hit the body voluntarily, (an odd replacement for ‘intentionally‘) he or she has committed no offence – an action forced on an opponent cannot be said to be made voluntarily.
If the ball is propelled at another player deliberately, and hits them, that may be an offence – will be if the stroke is made from within 5m of that player and the ball is raised at all – and that offence should be subject to penalty irrespective of the actions of the player hit or of any disadvantage the player propelling the ball may have caused to him or her self by this action. Being hit with the ball is not ‘playing the ball’, playing is an intentional action not an accidental or involuntary one. It is possible to misplay the ball where the intent is to play it, but that is a lapse in skill not a difference in intent.
We should have a balance of the same sort between the prohibition on ball shielding and the prohibition on any form of physical contact but, because ball-shielding is now almost ignored, we don’t. (The ignoring of ball shielding is itself ignored, it’s a subject that is simply not discussed any more). Added to that we are now and increasingly, seeing players in possession of the ball initiating physical contact by leading the ball with the body while moving into opponents who are trying to challenge for it – here again it is the forcing player who is offending, the player forced to back off or barged into, who is offended against – yet it is usually the player attempting to tackle who is penalised if he or she ‘holds their ground’.
The primary and ‘common sense’ task of an umpire in the interpretation of player actions and the application of Rule is to ensure ‘fair play’ and play within the Rules (which are intended to make the game reasonably safe for participants), everything else is secondary. Many umpires seem to think that their task is to ensure that there are as many goal-scoring opportunities (penalty corners) awarded as is possible – fairness and common sense nowhere in sight
An example of the kind of ‘thinking’ – which is in my view contrary to common sense – is given in this forum post (22nd July 2012) by a forum moderator, who is also (incredibly) a Level One Umpire Coach
.
So can anyone explain/ describe in what circumstances they think a defender would get the benefit of the clause :The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball……
Yes, I can explain/describe two circumstances: 1) When an attacker voluntarily kicks the ball into the goal, the defender gets a free hit. But that is just pointless cleverness, and is not the answer you are looking for. You want a different answer, based on circumstances involving the ball and foot of a defender. So… 2) When a defender… No, although I can describe it, it is better not to, because there are two possible outcomes: a) you will at last understand the disconnect in your thinking, and will be embarrased at the pointlessness of having repeatedly badgered the forum on this over so many years; b) you will as-usual refuse to believe the rational and carefully thought-out explanation, into which someone had put a lot of time and effort, and post the same question as many times as it takes to prolong this topic, and probably others to come, for many more pages of pointless circling.
There is another way to settle this, for your own peace-of-mind, for the good of the forum, for the benefit of hockey in general: no one (probably including FIH/HRB) must* ever know what ‘only commits an offence if they voluntarily use’ really means. It is to be taken as a bit of nonsense that means whatever the umpire needs it to mean in coming to a fair decision, in the spirit of the rules, protecting skilful play, and penalising cynicism and malice.
must* – yes it a strong word, and I expect some discussion of that. But it occurs to me that, much as some people expect the rules of a sport to have purely objective or legal meaning, the fact that their application requires judgement leads to the most essential rules having a subjective or political element. So in a game whose essence is playing with stick and not foot/body, the foot/body rule will have its legal sense (not stop, kick, propel, etc) surrounded by political phrases, which will be periodically adjusted to nudge the application of the rule to be tighter or looser, when the authorities think umpires have become generally too lenient or too harsh. When the ‘gains benefit’ phrase appeared in the mid-1990s, the rule it went with was ‘intentionally stop, kick, propel…’. That strong word aimed to break the usual application of the rule: penalise every little touch of a foot that was in any way “TO HIS OR HIS TEAM’S ADVANTAGE” (that part of the earlier rule really was in capital letters!). But umpires’ reaction was “They cannot be serious” and to carry on as before, penalising any slight ‘benefit’ (7th of 7 lines of notes), and ignoring ‘intentionally’ (the first word of the actual rule 13.1.2b). I think that even Justin and Deegum would agree that today’s gap between wording and practice yawns a good deal narrower than it did then. For 2004, FIH accepted the political failure and deleted ‘intentionally’, then tried again in 2007 with the more subtle adjustment of ‘voluntarily’ buried in the guidance. That had the desired result of umpires generally waving-on play after irrelevant foot contacts, while continuing to penalise anything important. So while some are unhappy with the legal sense of the current ‘volutarily’ guidance, to change it is a very big risk politically.
So what if an angel came down and touched the HRB, and they gave us a phrase that was no longer political but objective (maybe something to do with opponents’ possession or opportunity to play the ball?)? What then? There would be a note on page 5 to say that “the rule has changed but the interpretation stays the same” or “actions of this sort can be dealt with under other rules”, and 2 years later FHF would be having a pointless circular discussion about the meaning of ‘voluntarily’ in the old rule.
Back to the original topic: the forced foul rule is deleted in acceptance that it is fair play for an attacker to put the ball onto a defender’s foot in the circle, and thereby encourage the defensive skill of taking the ball off the attacker before they can do it.
Incredible. I reads like a lampooning skit by a buffoon, but I think he intends his conclusions to be taken seriously.
The same person memorably declared in a post a couple of years ago that defenders on the goal-line were penalised if hit with a (dangerously) raised ball as a safety measure. He ‘reasoned’ that such penalty discouraged defenders from taking up such positions. It didn’t seem to occur to him that a player propelling a ball high at a defender defending the goal could in any way be responsible for the consequences of doing so and could (and often should in fairness) be penalised for dangerous play.
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.
’Forcing’ was removed as an offence because, it was said, umpires could not determine intent and so could not penalise, and in any event such incidents were covered by “other Rules”. The incident shown in the video occurred before the removal of ‘forcing’ as an offence in 2011 but a penalty corner was still awarded. The umpire concerned apparently could not see the intent of the Australian player and was also unaware of the instruction tucked away in the Rule Guidance to Rule 9.9.
A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous. (No height mentioned)
There doesn’t appear to be ‘other Rule’ to deal with a ball that is intentionally propelled along the ground into the feet of an opponent at close range, although there was at one time the Rule Guidance (instruction) Players should not be penalised when the ball is played at them from a short distance. (that instruction was inexplicably removed when the rulebook was reformatted in 2004).
It does not help to bring clarity that the UMB, in reference to the lifted hit advises forget lifted- think danger and not the A raised hit must be judged explicitly on whether or not it is raised intentionally given in the Rules of Hockey, and the UMB also states, without mentioning the type of stroke, Low balls over defenders sticks in a controlled manner that hit half shin pad are not dangerous – a direct contradiction of what the FIH RC have given.
The ‘myth factory’ also provides interesting input. There is apparently an obligation on a challenger for the ball to defend his feet. To fail to do so is considered a lack of skill which should be penalised – no mention of intent to play the ball with the feet, but it is stated that the stick should be used to defend the feet – so feet behind stick. However, it is also asserted by the same ‘spinners’ that a player who positions his feet behind his stick (stick in front of feet) does so with the intention of playing the ball with the feet/body should he miss the ball with his stick, so such positioning is positioning with intention to play the ball with the feet. (I am not joking, such conclusions are posted by international level umpires on a Hockey Forum)
It’s amazing that so much can be read into the actions of a player attempting to tackle or channel a player in possession of the ball, when there is apparently so little ability to see intent, when the ball is propelled at the feet/legs of an opponent.
There is of course no such obligation to defend the feet, the onus on a challenger for the ball or any other player, is not to intentionally play the ball with the feet or any other part of body. Failing to avoid being hit is not the same thing as intentionally being hit or positioning to be hit with the ball, a phrase for which no one has offered an explanation. What exactly is this ‘positioning’ mentioned in the phrase “position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way” and how can this prior intention to stop the ball with the body be seen by the umpire or is it only a suspect assumption umpires have become accustomed to making?
