A pattern of deductive reasoning consisting of two premises and a conclusion – which may be valid or invalid, depending on what conclusion is arrived at by the reasoning of the person giving the conclusion.
Example.
Premise one. All men are mortal.
Premise two. Socrates is a man.
Conclusion. Socrates is mortal.
The premises are offered as true, so the above conclusion could be challenged by a pedant on the grounds that the evidence that Socrates is a man is subjective and unproven even if Socrates asserts ‘himself’ that ‘he’ is a man and this ‘fact’ is by agreed by common consent. This moves the ‘debate’ from one about mortality to another, possibly more ambiguous area, a definition of gender. However in this case the conclusion is not that Socrates is a man – that is given as a premise – but that Socrates is mortal, and that is not in dispute. The syllogism is more accurately set up by replacing the word ‘men’ and ‘man’ in the premises with ‘human being/s’.
Premise one. All human beings are mortal.
Premise two. Socrates is a human being.
Conclusion. Socrates is mortal.
Such adjustments to wording can, if used carefully, point the way to unambiguous and logical rule statements
The problem I invented arose because, in the first premise, ‘men’ may be seen to have been used as a generic term, to denote all human beings (as in mankind), and an ambiguity is created when, in the second premise, ‘man’ appears to be gender specific i.e. to exclude women. Rational people know that women are not immortal either and may also know that the term ‘men’ may have been used in a way that includes ‘women’. (the practice is not unusual in documentation to achieve brevity and clarity; until 2004 the Rules of Hockey used ‘he’ and ‘his’ to also mean ‘she’ and ‘her’) in other words premises that are not stated but are ‘known’ need to be taken into consideration unless this is specifically forbidden. It is often useful to exclude the general ’common sense’ of a premise to achieve a communal sense of the true meaning i.e. agreement and consistency in interpretation using only what is given in text. Only a given premise wording is then initially considered. Additional facts (words) that can be seen by ‘common sense’ to be missing are, in this way, more likely to be noted as missing and included (or at least discussed before) subsequently constructed premises are finalised.
A syllogism can therefore be challenged – said to be invalid- by disputing either of the premises or, if it does not appear to be a logical deduction from accepted premises, the conclusion. In the usual course of conversation or even of writing, the syllogism with which I began the article would not be remarked upon – I got it as the example given in a dictionary definition of a syllogism – but it was possible to make a criticism of it. The syllogism given in the Oxford English Dictionary, with the definition of the word, is much more open to dispute, but that is pointed out in the OED entry with which I began this article, syllogisms may be valid or invalid. E.g:-
All dogs are animals
All animals have four legs
Therefore all dogs have four legs.
The conclusion would not be disputed by any reasonable person (who knew what a dog was) but the second premise certainly could be – dolphins and apes are but two examples of species of animal that do not have four legs. The conclusion does not follow from the premise ”Some animals have four legs” and the conclusion “Some dogs have four legs” is obviously incorrect. Presenting one true and one false premise together with an obviously true conclusion is a ‘technique’ often used to get a very dubious premise ‘accepted’. The weak premise is ‘accepted’ without much thought because the other statements are so obviously correct.
The point I am making is that the given premises, as well as the ‘deducted’ conclusion, need to be critically examined when someone is trying to ‘prove’ a point by using a syllogism – or , beyond that, using the conclusions of two syllogisms as the premises of a third…. and so on. Obviously where ‘proofs’ are being demonstrated statements that are known to be fallacious should not be accepted as premises (or accepted only as a way of disproving). The finding of flaws in premises need not be taken to the point where further criticism of the semantics or syntax would be absolutely impossible, but obvious contradictions of terms, potential ambiguities in wording, etc. should be pointed out and clarified or corrected when reasonable conclusions are looked for.
The Socrates syllogism has reasonable premises and conclusion and perhaps only a pedant would call it invalid, the one about dogs is clearly an invalid syllogism from the given premises, even if all dogs are animals and all normal dogs have four legs, because the second of the two premises cannot by itself , due to known fallacy, lead to the given conclusion and for the same reason does not assist its partner to do so.
Discussions concerning the Rules of Hockey contain many assertions and conclusions which are seemingly (or at first sight) based on deductive reasoning, but are invalid because one or more of the premises offered are fallacious or ambiguous (open to misinterpretation and therefore to misapplication), or the conclusions are not logical (rational) deductions if one or both the premises are accepted as true.
The topic. Voluntarily making body contact with the ball.
In 2004 the HRB (FIH Rules Committee) changed the Rule Guidance embedded in the ball body contact Rule from :-
13.1.2 Use of body, hands, feet by players other than goal-keepers
Players shall not:-
a. stop or catch the ball with the hand
There is nothing to prevent players using their hands to protect themselves from dangerously raised balls.
b. intentionally stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their bodies
It is not automatically an offence if the ball hits the foot or body of a player. On many occasions when a ball hits the foot or body of a player an offence will not have taken place and play should continue.
It is only an offence if the ball hits the foot or body of a player and that player:
• moved intentionally into the path of the ball, or
• made no effort to avoid being hit, or
• was positioned with the clear intention to stop the ball with the foot or body, or
• gains benefit.
To this
9.10 Field players must not stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their body.
It is not an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player, unless that player or their team benefits from this.
No offence is committed if the ball hits the hand holding the stick but would otherwise have hit the stick.
removing the word ‘intentionally’ from the Rule.
Then in 2007 the word ‘voluntarily’ was added to the Rule Guidance and ‘gains benefit’ was removed. (*) Which gives the current (2013) Rule.
9.11 Field players must not stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their body.
It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player. The player
only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball or if they
position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way.
It is not an offence if the ball hits the hand holding the stick but would otherwise have hit the stick.
It was not revealed why ‘intentionally’ was dropped from the Rule or why a few years later ‘voluntarily’ was added to the Rule Guidance. Perhaps it was because dropping ‘intentionally’ completely was later considered to have been too big a step or a mistake and ‘voluntarily’ was thought a suitable synonym to replace it without loss of ‘face’. Who knows? But there was a problem; umpires had quickly, post 2004, become accustomed to penalising any and all ball/body contact (some had always done so because the fact of such contact is a very easy objective criteria, it requires observation but little judgement) and they were reluctant to go back to the difficulty and uncertainty of looking for intention or voluntary contact.
(*) Three weeks after the activation date of the 2007- 09 Rules of Hockey a ‘note’ was posted on the FIH website which announce that ‘gains benefit’ would continue to apply as it had in 2006, so ‘gains benefit’ was not in effect deleted until January 2009 i.e. on issue of the 2009-11 Rules of Hockey sans ‘gained benefit’ or any substitute for it. ‘Gains benefit’ was not restored in 2011-13 and has not been restored to the current Rules 2013 – 15.
The Discussion
Debate about the meaning of ‘voluntarily’ resulted in the opinions below – expressed over two separate threads, made six months apart, on a hockey related website – from an International level umpire, who uses the tag Bondy. Aside from the opening post I have reproduced only the posts that Bondy put up – most of them contain quotes in italics from other contributors which help a little to hang them together.
The first thread, from November 2011, was entitled Incidental foot.
JMZevans (The opening post)
I have scanned through the forum for some clarity on an old classic but would like to confirm a decision from the weekend. Situation as follows:
Attacker driving along the baseline and hits the ball towards the top of the D. Near the top it hits a defenders foot. Had the defender missed it then the ball would have travelled uninterrupted all the way to the sideline. Attackers shout for a PC, defenders shout that the ball would have gone off and would have been their side line ball.
Which is the correct decision??
.
Bondy
redumpire said: I assumed the ball hadn’t gone off the sideline and was still with the defender whose foot it had hit, in which case it’s play on…
Surely this would be a PC? It hit the defender’s foot, and he gained possession because of it. I know that he would have had the sideline hit, had it not hit his foot – but in the time that it takes for the ball to get to the sideline and for the defender to set up to take the hit, the attackers would have had the opportunity to set up their press. To me, that means that the defender has gained advantage from the foot in the circle, therefore you’ve got no option but to award a PC.
.
Bondy
redumpire said: Fair point, Bondy; let’s put it another way. If the ball hit a player’s foot somewhere near the middle of the pitch as the ball was on a trajectory to go over the sideline and that player was in acres of space, would you award a FH? I wouldn’t; so why would I award a PC?
I completely agree that if you wouldn’t award a FH in midfield, you shouldn’t award a PC, but I believe that it has to be a FH. The defender is advantaged by getting the ball ‘right now’ in central field position, instead of getting a sideline hit in a few seconds, which would give the opposition time to set up a defensive press.
deegum said: Sorry alex, but Justin has said, there has been no offence at all. Therefore no FHA, PC, PS or anything. In fact the defence might sometimes gain an advantage,, but play on, still no offence.
I honestly don’t see how there’s no offence here – am I missing something that everyone else is thinking? The defender has stopped the ball with his foot, and in doing so, has gained an advantage (and therefore disadvantaged the opposition). Offence by the defender. It happens to be in the circle, so it’s a PC.
To those who say that the defender hasn’t ‘voluntarily’ stopped the ball with his foot, he’s at least 15m from where the ball was hit, and one would assume he’s watching the ball. Therefore he’s had plenty of time to get out of the way, or use his stick to trap it… and because he’s chosen to do neither, it’s a voluntary (subtle difference from ‘intentional’) use of the foot. I know it’s a horrible soft PC, but I honestly think that you have to give it.
.
Bondy
redumpire said: We’ft have to have a good pre-match chat if ever we umpire together,,, or, you’l! have to change your views if you’re ever umpiring when I’m TD !!
I think we should just hope that the defenders know how to trap!!
Incidentally – Diligent, I’m right with you that if the ball HAD gone out, it’s definitely a sideline hit attack, because hitting the foot has led to the defender losing possession. I don’t believe that there’s any legitimate argument for PC in that situation… as opposed to when it stays in, there are two valid schools of thought (ie, PC or play on) – I’ll argue black and blue that it needs to be a PC, but those who argue play on have also got a valid argument (just slightly less valid, IMHO)
.
Bondy
Hacker said: Bondy, does your decision after if the “foot” happens at the top of the D with no attackers dose {as Diligent says above) or if it’s closer to the goaf line and attackers a bit nearer?
No – because of the foot, the defender gets possession in space and therefore the ability to start a counter-attack, and easily attack down the centre or either side of the field. If it hadn’t hit the foot, they’ve still got possession, but it’s at the sideline, which means that the attackers have extra time to set a press and pressure the defence.
.
The following July there was a discussion about the correct decision if the ball was deliberately played into contact with an opponent and the meaning of the word ‘voluntarily’ was raised again. Bondy had become more extreme in his view and also more certain that he was right to penalise any ball/body contact (unless opponents could play on with advantage - were not disadvantaged ) in spite of the fact that the discussion was about contacts intentionally forced (*) by opponents and ‘gained benefit’ or ‘gained advantage’, which he quotes, had finally ‘disappeared’ from the Rules of Hockey more than three years earlier.
(*) After January 2011 forcing an opponent into a breach of Rule was deleted as an offence in itself.
.
Bondy
I believe that Justin, et al, are confusing “voluntary” and “involuntary” with “unintentional” and “intentional”. To my mind, a foot becomes “voluntary” when a player puts himself in a position where there is the potential that they will play the ball with the foot, ie – a defender comes to tackle an attacker, and ends up stopping the ball with his foot. He hasn’t intentionally done it, but because he’s put himself into position knowing there’s a chance he’ll kick it, it’s voluntary and therefore a free hit attack.
Saying “Well, I tried to stop it hitting my foot because I tried to use my stick to make the tackle/trap/dribble/whatever” doesn’t make it involuntary – you’ve still put yourself in a position where there’s a reasonable chance of the ball hitting you – it’s unintentional, but it’s not involuntary. Frankly, any other interpretation is a fundamental change to the game, and goes against the whole principle that hockey stick and ball game.
I do agree that there’s a reasonable argument that the “find a foot” incidents are being blown incorrectly… but I also think that everyone expects it to be blown that way, and as far as I’m concerned, until a specific directive from FIH that the way it’s being blown is wrong (and the removal of manufactured fouls is a pretty strong indication that that’s not gonna happen any time soon), I’m going to keep givin what everyone’s happy with and not play-ons that everyone thinks are wrong.
From those five posts it is possible to construct a large number of pairs of related premises to construct syllogisms and reach conclusions. The problem will be consistency, because many of the statements Bondy makes are contradicted by others. Even the meaning of ‘everybody’ has changed significantly between first mention and last.
Using directly conflicting pairs is not entirely pointless as it is as useful to know what is not valid as what is. but premises that are different but supportive of each other (or at least not opposed) will also have to be found. The premises and conclusions from opinion and ‘practice’ (player expectation etc.) can then be paired with related phrase statements from the Rules of Hockey. First it is necessary to list individual premises from the statements he made.
That could take a week. It’s an exercise a reader might like to try for themselves. A start could be made by determination of the meaning of the word ‘voluntarily’ in the context of the Rule Guidance, weighed against the asserted ’acceptance of risk’ and the imposition of penalty (How does one justify penalty as a deterrent when the penalised action has been forced?) .
An aside. It needs to be borne in mind that the ball/body contact Rule relates to all ball/body contact, not just to ball contact made with the feet. When assessing ‘acceptance of risk’ and ‘voluntarily’ one has to be aware of the possibility of the sort of incident shown in the video. The defender ’knew’ as he ran towards the ball, that it was possible that the player in possession of the ball would propel it towards his head: would it therefore be reasonable for the umpire to penalise the player hit? Bondy “To my mind, a foot becomes “voluntary” when a player puts himself in a position where there is the potential that they will play the ball with the foot“. Is that reasonable? Is being hit with the ball ‘playing it’ if the contact is not intentional?
What is different about the actions of a defender running towards a player in possession of the ball when the defender is hit by the propelled ball on the head or upper body rather than on the foot? The answer is likely to be “Nothing”, the difference is in the action of the player propelling the ball – he raises it. When is responsibility for his own voluntary action to be accepted by the player propelling the ball? Always? Never? Sometimes? E.g. only outside the shooting circle even if the ball is flicked – a legal stroke in any open play? (The justification for raising a hit at a defender in the circle is often that it is legal to raise a shot hit at the goal – but clearly, for fairness and safety, something more than just the legality of the stroke used is required of the player propelling the ball.) Debate concerning forced ball/foot contact will always tend to shift towards arguments concerning the forcing of self-defence (or endangerment), playing the ball towards an opponent’s head being an extreme example of playing the ball at any part of an opponent. So how about a position, more than 5m from the ball – and possibly in the circle – when a defender is hit on the head with the ball – who is responsible – one player, both, neither?
A dictionary definition:
Voluntary adj.
1. Done or undertaken of one’s own free will: a voluntary decision to leave the job.
2. Acting or done willingly and without constraint or expectation of reward: a voluntary hostage; voluntary community work.
3. Normally controlled by or subject to individual volition: voluntary muscle contractions.
4. Capable of making choices; having the faculty of will.
5. Supported by contributions or charitable donations rather than by government appropriations: voluntary hospitals.
6. Law a. Without legal obligation or consideration: (consideration can be viewed as a legal term for payment; with money or goods or services) a voluntary conveyance of property.
b. Done deliberately; intentionally: voluntary manslaughter.
These adjectives mean being or resulting from one’s own free will.
Voluntary implies the operation of unforced choice: “Ignorance, when it is voluntary, is criminal” (Samuel Johnson).
Intentional applies to something undertaken to further a plan or realize an aim: ”I will abstain from all intentional wrongdoing and harm” (Hippocratic Oath.
Deliberate stresses premeditation and full awareness of the character and consequences of one’s acts: taking deliberate and decisive action.
Wilful implies deliberate, headstrong persistence in a self-determined course of action: a wilful waste of time.
Willing suggests ready or cheerful acquiescence in the proposals or requirements of another: ”The first requisite of a good citizen … is that he shall be able and willing to pull his weight” (Theodore Roosevelt).
What is meant by the asserted ‘acceptance of risk’, and whether or not it is actually relevant to the application of this Rule, might also be considered.
The Direct Lift Mandatory Experiment has thrown up a paradox.
A Free-Hit may be lifted directly with any stroke except a hit.
It is surprising that the FIH Rules Committee did not alter the term for the penalty because they have made alterations to terminology elsewhere. The game used to start with a Bully, that was sensibly changed to Pass-Back (not Hit Back) when the game was started with a back-pass and subsequently to Center-Pass, when the ball could be played in any direction to start. Lateral thinking should have led to other changes of name at the same time, but that didn’t occur.
One change that was made was to rename the Long Corner a Corner, but the habit of calling that restart a Long Corner is so ingrained that it is still called Long Corner (which does not matter) but it is often written (long) Corner to distinguish it from the Penalty Corner – which for some unknown reason is called a Short Corner. The oddity is not created by renaming the Long Corner a Corner, it is a result of someone long ago (maybe before the existence of the HRB) using the word ‘corner’ in the term used to describe inserting the ball into play from a position on the base-line 10 yards (later 10m) from a goal-post during a penalty re-start awarded for an offence in the circle (another odd name, I wonder is that the result of dropping ’semi’ from semi-circle? D is a better descriptive term, but few use it). Why was ‘corner ‘ used at all? Perhaps, at one time, the penalty Corner was inserted from the corner formed by the intersection of the base-line and the circle-line? Penalty-Inject or Penalty-Insert would have served the purpose, without causing a need to rename the Corner a Long-Corner. Hopefully the Penalty-Corner will be replaced with a Penalty-Play (a penalty power-play in the 23m area) in the not too distance future and this inconsequential irregularity will disappear.
Given the ease with which confusing terms can confuse those not familiar with the game (for example television commentators – who appear to be selected for their ignorance – during the Olympic Games) I was surprised to read this comment by a Tournament Director, who prides himself on being something of a pedant, when it was suggested that Free-Hit should be changed to Free-Start or Free-Ball or Free-Pass (all of which avoid the contradiction mentioned above).
Here’s something to think about for those of you that want to change a perfectly serviceable piece of nomenclature for something new: FIH changed all the measurements in the book to metric several years ago (can’t be bothered to look up when, I’m sure someone will), yet most of us still refer to ‘a 16′ rather than ‘a 15′ and ‘the 25′ rather than ‘the 23′; so I reckon even if the name was changed to a ‘free ball’ or a ‘free start’ 90%+ of us would still refer to it as a ‘free hit’.
Don’t (want to) believe me? Look at football: in 1996 FIFA officially changed the name of the two guys with the flags from ‘linesmen’ to ‘assistant referees’. How many people call them assistant referees even after 17 years? Very, very few.
I believe him, metrication took place in 1974 but the British still use pounds and ounces. Although I never refer to the 23m (line or area) as the 25, or a 15m as a 16 yd., I still think of the weight of a hockey stick in ounces. But I have to say – so what? Is there any contradiction or confusion likely when someone says 16 rather than 15 or calls a football (soccer) official a linesman rather than an assistant-referee? Notice how it is sometimes necessary to write (soccer) after football – so that Americans who play a game in which the ball is played with the hands 99.95% of the time – don’t get confused, even when no-one else in the world understands why Grid Iron is called Football by Americans . The important thing is that in the Rules of Hockey and in the Laws of Association Football – and the official rules of any other game – correct terminology is presented.
We all know about the annoyance of change when we don’t want change (for example, having to call hockey ‘field-hockey’ because ice-hockey players call their – much more commercially successful - game, hockey), but resisting sensible change for the sake of resisting change – which is what this TD is doing when he writes ” to change a perfectly serviceable piece of nomenclature for something new - is a case of him just being silly or ’bloody-minded’.
Rules of Hockey. ‘Foot’. Forcing. “Gains benefit”. Confusion and con.
I included these opening posts when posting the entire discussion thread in my article Loopy Vicious Circles http://wp.me/pKOEk-VFon April 1st. but did not comment on the individual posts except to say that some of the contributors seemed to be unaware of the topic of the thread. ‘Distraction techniques’ used in discussion – the politician’s trick of answering the question they have an answer for or want to answer, rather than the questions asked, often done ‘automatically’, as if to a script – is evident here, but I don’t think it is deliberate, the posters are just repeating arguments that those who have previously employed such evasions have ‘trained’ them to give. The same pattern can be seen in umpiring decisions given.
The thread begins with several questions from someone new to umpiring – and maybe even new to field-hockey.
Dan Quinton Can you more experienced umpires please advise on what you look out for and what you do about attackers intentionally pushing the ball onto a defenders foot in the D. I am still struggling with the fact that players always expect a PC to be given if the ball hits a defenders foot in D, whatever happens.
Dan Quinton is the kind of novice that this advice – from a UK County Umpires Association Handbook – was aimed at :-
The notes to the foot body rule 9.11 say it is an offence ‘only’ when contact with the ball is ‘voluntary’, but in practice an accidental contact that alters the balance of play is just as much an offence as deliberately playing with foot or body.
This is just one example of interpreting rules consistently with your partner and with other umpires the teams will have. Sometimes their interpretation will differ from how the rule seems, to you, to read. But you must umpire play their way, and never apply your own version. If that leaves you uncomfortable then a bit of lateral thinking should soon enough make the same sense of it for you as it does for everyone else.
That advice is pernicious nonsense but it is typical of the kind of instruction given to novice umpires, especially young ones, by umpire coaches from their local umpiring associations. The correct advice would be to get to know and understand the Rule and Rule Guidance as given in the rule book and to apply it literally as written. Those who would react with feigned horror at such an idea and point out the many flaws there are in the published Rules of Hockey, might then do something to address such flaws, instead of dismissing the parts that do not fit with their ‘personal philosophy’ of how hockey should be both governed and umpired – their own ‘interpretations’ (which are, of course, in the opinion of these umpires, far superior to the Rule and Rule Guidance published by the FIH Rules Committee) . The author of the above rubbish regularly posts on a hockey related website that umpires commonly allow play to continue when there is an unintentional foot/ball contact – a view at odds with what he has been coaching – because ‘in practice’ any foot/ball contact will be assumed to alter the balance of play in some way .
kaiwawaoThe simple answer is that you can’t do anything about the “manufactured foul” as the rule against it was deleted a little while back. Your only consideration now is whether there was any danger – you cannot penalise an attacker for putting the ball onto a foot in the D.
That is exactly the situation but then kaiwawao continues…
A slightly longer view I would add that is yes, you can certainly argue for a play on or no foul especially if the ball was going to go out of play were it not for the contact. Indeed if it does go out anyway you could then give a LC but you’d struggle to convince most players at most levels to READ the rules let alone know all the amendments that have happened in the years since they last looked at the book so your life will be easier to give a PC
Probably without noticing that he has done so, he has changed the subject being discussed – which was the forcing of a ball/foot contact onto an opponent by a player in possession of the ball – and writes about ‘arguing’ for “play-on – no offence” after the ball has hit the defender’s foot, the ‘no offence’ he is referring to being the foot/ball contact, not the forcing action of the player who was in possession of the ball.
The expectation of players that is referred to in the opening post is that any ball/foot contact will be penalised as an offence; but who, it must be asked, is the umpire ‘arguing’ with – if not himself. What has the expectation of players to do with giving the correct decision? Why worry about the expectation of players if one is convinced that they don’t know the Rules ? (That players do not know the Rules is – an often inaccurate – slur on players that umpires commonly and casually repeat, despite those same umpires ignoring much of the published Rules of Hockey and substituting their own ‘common sense’ so that players cannot ‘know’ what ‘rules’ are being applied.) Who creates the expectation of players but umpires? Players come to expect umpires to do as other umpires have done – the advice quoted from the hand-book above is for umpires to do just that – and not to try to make their own sense of what is given in the rule book.
I’m sure there are plenty of umpires who consider the removal unfortunate due to the the way it has legitimised the lazy players “winning” a PC because they “skilfully” managed to put the ball onto the foot of a defender when a pass or a shot would be more attractive or even more logical play.
But these umpires do not, it appears, act on their considered opinion. The removal of forcing as an offence has not legitimized the ‘winning’ of a penalty corner by the forcing of a foot contact by an opponent. The forcing of the contact may not be an offence in itself (but may also be dangerous play) , but the fact that the contact is forced must mean that the foot/ball was not made voluntarily by the player hit and therefore cannot be an offence by the player hit. The removal of forcing as an offence does not ‘automatically’ convert all forced ball/foot contact into an offence by the player hit with the ball, it simply removes the previous facility to penalise a player forcing such a contact. The two incidents – forcing and being hit with the ball – are different and separate and by different players, in fact opposed competitors.
HackerNot sure I would agree. For me if there is no movement by the defender to actively use their foor OR if the defender hasn’t IMO deliberately position their feet to block the ball AND there is no attacker positioned to play the ball (it’s no a legitimate pass) then its play on. I was quite a heavy user of manufactured foul so mourn its passing).
Hacker continues along the path the discussion has been diverted onto. He proposes several conditions to be met if the defender is not to be penalised (if the ball has been intentionally forced onto the defender’s foot by an attacker). That forcing was previously an offence by a player in possession of the ball has been overlooked – the part in brackets is omitted from thinking. I don’t believe this is intentional in this case, it’s just habit. Umpires habitually regard any foot/ball contact as an offence and a potential need for penalty. He doesn’t directly mention ‘gains benefit’ but writes of the absence of an attacker positioned to play the ball and as if intentionally forcing the ball into the foot of a defender could at the same time be regarded as a legitimate attempt to make a pass (the attacker ‘having (keeping) his cake and eating it’): it can’t be both. The gained benefit exception to the Rule Guidance to Rule 9.11. was in any case deleted several years ago and so the presence or absence of a team-mate of the player forcing a foot contact on the far side of the player hit with the ball is (doubly?) irrelevant. Attempting to pass the ball ‘through’ an opponent is in any case a contradiction in terms – pass being a shortening of by-pass i.e. going around, not ‘through’ – and very poor hockey, ‘passes’ are not made at opponents.
Inverting cause and reallocating blame has become a much used, even overused strategy, there are examples of it within previous issues of the Rules of Hockey and in ‘common practice’. The prime example of such an inversion of a Rule in the Rules of Hockey was the (now deleted) PIT Interpretation of the Obstruction Rule (9.12) which, in a way that was similar to the ‘flip’ from discussing ’forcing’ to discussing a contact offence – seen above – flipped from mention of obstructive actions by a player in possession of the ball to describing actions by a player attempting to tackle for the ball, which would have been more appropriately placed in the following Rule (9.13), (that forbids tackling from a position where physical contact would occur). This interpretation effectively destroyed the Obstruction Rule by distracting attention from the purpose of the Rule, the prohibiting of obstructive actions. The prime example of ‘inversion’ in the ‘common practice’ of umpires, is the unwritten ‘rule’ they have invented that declares an ‘on target’ shot at the goal cannot be considered dangerous play. Both of these inversions have become so ingrained (PIT is still applied even though deleted after 2003) that if umpires are asked to describe circumstances in which they would penalise a shot made at a player defending his team’s goal, made more than 5m from that player, as dangerous play or to describe circumstances of ball shielding – without physical contact – which they would penalise as Obstruction, they have no reply. In these areas umpires are no longer making or even attempting to make decisions about dangerous play and obstruction, they simply don’t see offences.
Dan Quinton thanks kaiwawao – as someone relatively new to umpiring (me that is) are you saying that there used to be a rule to prevent ‘manufactured fouls’ in the D? When and why was it removed? I dont see the logic as it seems so easy to do in the D and get a short for nothing.
When? Officially in 2011. Why? Because for some years the forcing of a foot contact was ignored; incredibly the FIH RC amended (deleted) Rule to follow ‘practice’. Why the ‘practice’? It is much easier to make the observation “Did the ball hit a foot?” than the judgement “Did the player in possession of the ball propel the ball into his opponent’s foot intentionally?” Once the habit of penalising foot/ball contact became established the reasons for doing so were simply ‘forgotten’, so even obviously forced contact resulted in the player hit with the ball being penalised as a matter of established practice and player expectation. ”An ‘on target’ shot at goal cannot be dangerous” is just an extension of the same idea – with a few added ‘bells and whistles’ such as ‘accepting risk’, ‘positioning with intent’ ‘causing danger by positioning’ ‘intent to use the body if the ball is missed with the stick’ – any excuse to avoid examining the actions and intent of the player who raised the ball and endangered an opponent by doing so. Motive? More penalty corners, more goals.
I have picked out one other post because it gives another ‘slant’ to the penalising of offences.
ToPpS I know at tournaments, we’re briefed that attackers have to “EARN” their short corners! As other members have pointed out, if the the defender has gained an advantage from having the ball touch their foot in the circle/D, then it’s a short corner. If they have NOT gained an advantage then it’s a play on.
Granted you need either the experience or the confidence (balls) to sell that to the players, as they are conditioned to expect the short corner. Blow it, don’t blow it but be consistent in your decisions throughout the match and you should be fine.
As the others have done, ToPps ignores the topic of the thread and looks instead to find an offence in the foot/ball contact and does so via the long deleted ‘gains benefit exception to the Rule Guidance to Rule 9.11‘. He also goes along with the strange notion that Rule compliant decisions would have to be ‘sold’ to players whom other umpires have ‘trained’ to expect something else: as kaiwawao noted, it is much easier to do what is expected (in this case award a penalty corner, even if it is completely wrong). The slant that ToPps introduces – from briefing he has received – is the ‘earning’ of a penalty. What an Umpire Coach should be conveying to candidate umpires is that where an advantage can be played it should be played, so players should not, as they commonly do, just shove the ball into the foot of an opponent and then immediately stop playing, assuming the ‘automatic’ penalty ‘won’. A penalty is in any case a penalty against the team of a player who has committed an offence, it is not a reward given to and certainly not ’earned’ by an action of the opposing team. The deletion of forcing as an offence in its own right has ‘dented’ that principle, but it still holds true: penalties should not be regarded as rewards and ‘played for’ or ‘created’. Umpires should not allow themselves to be ‘conned’ in this way, even if it is easy to ‘go along’ with the con and they are expected by ‘everybody’ to do so for the sake of consistency.
That umpires did consistently ignore forcing and still ignore obstructive ball shielding, but still insist on penalising unintentional ball/body contact, is just a historical accident, doing as other umpires have done and are doing; ‘common practice’ could just as easily been the opposite had a lead been given in the opposite direction.
Field Hockey Rules. Obstruction. Backsticks. Different penalties.
The first clip shows a defender deliberately shielding the ball to prevent an opponent making a tackle attempt and also moving bodily into the opponent – who is obliged to retreat to avoid contact (for fear of being penalised for tackling with contact). For some reason, that I cannot fathom, the umpires waves play on until a second attacker tries to get at the ball from the other side of the ball-holder, waits a few seconds, and then awards a penalty corner.
In the first incident in the next clip what looks like a backstick shot at the goal is scored from. Unfortunately the frame rate of the original is low, so the slow-motion is not much help in deciding what happened. The second incident is clearly backsticks but there is some doubt about the intent of the defender and certainly about her Rule knowledge. I say that because if she had knocked the ball off the base-line a penalty corner would have been used as a re-start (an alternative would be much fairer here http://wp.me/pKOEk-Kd ). If she had shielded the ball and ‘crab-walked’ it out of the circle she may not have been penalised at all. The player was obviously shocked to have a penalty stroke awarded against her team because she failed to turn the head of the stick sufficiently.
What surprises me is 1) that a deliberate obstruction, which clearly prevents an opponent playing the ball, is penalised with a penalty corner and not, as it should have been, with a penalty stroke. Why should it not be a penalty stroke? 2) that backsticks continues to be regarded as an offence almost fifteen years after edge hitting was introduced – when it was obviously introduced to circumvent ‘back-sticks’ and in response to a demand for facility to hit the ball from the left of the body – but 3) ball shielding and moving into an opponent while doing so – two offences – are not seen as offences.
In the 2010 World Cup it was obvious that the Chinese team had been coached to avoid giving obstruction (and they played very attractive hockey). This was not as evident in 2012 at the London Olympics, but the habit of movement away rather than turning and blocking was obviously still there. I suppose that by the next World Cup they will obstruct opponents as readily and as deliberately as any of the other top teams – a pity.
One of the justifications given for introducing edge-hitting was that it was very difficult for an umpire to tell if the face of the stick-head or the back of it had been used to strike the ball. That ‘reasoning’ made no sense to me at the time (1999) and still doesn’t. But it makes good sense as an argument to allow the ball to be played with any part of the stick -head.
The reverse edge hit is not an easy stroke to execute (and the ‘hard’ forehand edge hit has been banned because of the difficulty there is in controlling the path and flight of the ball). The incident shown in the video is outside the shooting circle and would be illegal even if not dangerous – the ball has been intentionally lifted with a hit – but too often the stroke is used like that as a means of making a shot at the goal, ’through’ any defender unfortunate enough to get in the way. Unfortunate because it is the defender who is likely to be penalised – even if injured. Another contrast in penalty but this time because of location - and the bizarre notion that an ‘on target’ shot at the goal cannot be dangerous play - rather than the nature of the offence. If that incident had occurred in the circle as a shot at the goal it’s not unlikely that the defender would be penalised for positioning with intent to stop the ball with his body.
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.
Question asked in 2010. The EHL own goal save…if a defender were to accidentally raise a ball towards net, should a defender on the goalline (not goalie/pwgkp) be allowed to stop the ball above shoulder height? Again, common sense says ‘of course’, but letter of the law doesn’t allow for it because technically the ball wasn’t raised during a shot at goal.
The questioner answers his own question in four words, but invites this answer, given over two posts, by an umpire who had not (and has not) umpired an European Hockey League match.
Top level umpires know the rules inside and out and then forget them and make decisions based on what matters at that point in that context of the game, not what the black and white of the rule book says.
That’s why we have endless conversations here about this event or that decision made by X or Y at a top tournament, where several people inevitably say “but that’s not what the rule says” or “but that’s not how I’d call it at my level.”
Exactly right. Because at that level, you have to have more feel for the game than to just quote lines from the book (especially out of date ones). And it doesn’t matter one whit what someone would call at their local derby between the men’s 7′s on a Saturday. It’s just irrelevant, and I don’t know how else to explain why then to say – this is exactly what I’m learning and starting to understand right now as I progress to the next level.
This is why I dispute how valuable the “was this umpire right?” discussions are unless they centre on “how do I apply the right principles in MY game.”
As for the immediate questions Alex raises, I also wonder how relevant they are to most of our daily umpiring processes. They’re not about interpretation of rules which are universally applied, but literally scenarios that expose issues in the experimental variations that aren’t applicable to everyone on the forum and may never be. If they are, they will take on a modified form that takes these issues into account.
If people want to get into the nuts and bolts of an academic discussion, great. It helped me this weekend knowing that I’d thought through whether I’d allow a defender to clear a ball directed above her shoulder height by her teammate. I just don’t want anyone to get confused or anxious about things that don’t affect their games – umpiring well is already hard enough, isn’t it?
Focusing on the rules makes one a very technical, black and white umpire. When you’re starting out or at the lower levels, this can be a pretty good thing because your knowledge provides consistency that players and coaches don’t see in many umpires and the matches the level of the game.
***
Top umpires get very far away from this black and white view of the rules because getting decisions correct isn’t as important as managing what comes out of those decisions and communicating expectations for future behaviour. Hockey at the top levels is all about exceptions – incredible skills and abilities that come out of nowhere and surprise and amaze you. Your reaction is instinctive at this point, not thinking about Rule 9(g) or anything like that but having such a thorough knowledge of what the rules actually mean during a game that it informs a general spirit where if it’s not unfair, you stay out of it. In a lot of ways, you really do forget about the rules and feel the game instead.
So when it comes to the “own goal/defender saves on the line with high stick” question, think of it this way: if an attacker hits the ball square across the circle in attempt to pass to an open teammate, a defender attempts to intercept and it deflects high towards the goal and a second defender saves that ball from going in the net by using their stick above their shoulder, what would you do? Instinctively, you’d say play on. If it were an “own goal” exception, you’d say play on. Why?
Technically speaking, neither scenario fulfills the definition of a “shot at goal” as defined under the rules as in neither case “an attacker [is] intending to score by playing the ball towards the goal from within the circle.” But that doesn’t matter, because if the balls goes in the net under either scenario, it’s a goal. The spirit of the rule is to allow defenders to save goals, not just “shots at goal” as defined by the rule book. You know that because you know all the rules under the rule book and know that we all want to make the game about the players and the amazing things they do, not about the Terminology section and Rule 9.7. It just feels right, doesn’t it? That’s the call a top umpire would make without hesitation, because they would forget that the definition of a “shot at goal” doesn’t capture these situations.
The above answer reminds me of the phrase ‘separating the wheat from the chaff ‘. There is some ‘sense’ in it but also a great deal of ‘rubbish’.
In 2013 the FIH RC having adopted the EHL Own Goal Rule did not change the wording of Rule 9.7, but added a note to it pointing to Rule 8. – which should help clarify the situation concerning high deflections off own team players prevented from entering the goal by a field defender with an above should stick.
9.7 Players must not play the ball with any part of the stick when the ball is above shoulder height except that defenders are permitted to use the stick to stop or deflect a shot at goal at any height.
Defenders are also permitted to use the stickto stop or deflect the ball at any height if it is otherwise likely to enter the goal as a result of Mandatory Experimental Rule 8.
.
8 Method of scoring
Mandatory Experimental Rule
8.1 A goal is scored when:
a the ball is played by an attacker, or touches the stick or body of a defender, within the circle.
The answer to the question raised should have been ”Use your common sense, as you have done, to ensure fair play until such time as an amendment to the Rule or Rule Guidance is made.“
.
From the rule book of 2003, the year in which permit for a defender to stop or deflect a shot at the goal was introduced as an Mandatory Experiment.
PREFACE
THE CONTENT OF THE RULES BOOK The International Hockey Federation through its Hockey Rules Board (HRB) regards the Rules Book as a very important means of communication. A consistent understanding of the Rules by players, coaches, and umpires and other technical officials helps us all to play the game fairly and to enjoy the game game even more.
RULES INTERPRETATIONS
In the past in addition to the Rules Interpretations included in the Rules Book, briefing papers have occasionally been prepared primarily for umpires at international tournaments. However, we all play the game by the same set of Rules so interpretations in the Rules Book should be as complete as possible. Additional papers should be unnecessary. (my bold and underline) Accordingly, Appendix B (Rules Interpretations) in this 2003 edition has been significantly revised. It now incorporates the other briefing papers referred to above.
In 2004 the ”significant revisions” to FIH Rules Interpretations of 2003 were subsumed into a new format of rule book in which Guidance for Players and Umpires, previously on the page opposite the Rule page, were combined with Rules Interpretations (previously in an Appendix), and they together formed Rule Guidance, which was (and now is) written in italics beneath each Rule – but a great deal of both the previous Guidance and Interpretation was simply deleted – as were some Rules. The commitment to incorporating all briefing papers was ’forgotten’ and a separate Umpire Managers Briefing for FIH Umpires at Tournaments continued to be published. As this publication can be changed at will by the FIH Umpiring Committee it became the reference of choice, and the Rules of Hockey, the FIH Rules Committee bi-annual publication, the only official source of Rule, was ‘side-lined’.
Today, while some Rule Guidance is treated as ‘set in stone’ some others, on the whim of umpires, are dismissed as ‘notes’. For example ‘gains benefit‘ although deleted some years ago, is still ’set in stone’ while The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball is part of a ‘note’ – which is ignored if ’benefit’ is gained by a player hit with the ball and even when it is not : – see http://wp.me/pKOEk-VF
Ten years on from 2003 anyone who protests “But that is not what the Rules say” in any situation that arises in play, is regarded as ‘a dinosaur’ or an ‘old fuddy-duddy’. The Rules ‘don’t ‘matter’ they can be ‘forgotten’ and ‘common sense’ applied. But by who? Part of the results of such ‘forgetting’ and the application of ‘common sense’ is the deletion of forcing as an offence (because it was not enforced), the ignoring of ball shielding and barging by a player in possession of the ball, the ignoring of the intentionally lifted hit – not a shot at the goal, and there is a well established notion that an ‘on target’ shot at the goal cannot be dangerous (rather than must not be dangerous). I don’t think much of this sort of ‘common sense’, it’s not sensible.
The FIH RC (should) provide unambitious ‘interpretation’ of the wording of its own Rule (avoiding the use of ambiguous words and syntax in both Rule and Rule Guidance) and provide reasonably complete Guidance about how it is to be applied. The umpire ‘interprets’ the actions and intentions of players for Rule compliance. An umpire should not need to concern him or her self about the meanings of the words used in Rule or Rule Guidance, certainly not during the course of a match. That ‘interpretation’ (meaning of), should it be necessary to discover it, should be known and understood before an umpire sets foot on a pitch. Interpretation of action and intent, on the other hand, cannot take place off-pitch.
The word interpretation is itself ambiguous and so umpires stray where they should have no need to. What does this mean? :- The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball. or each these terms: legitimate evasive action ; legitimate tackle. It is not helpful when the word ‘voluntarily’ replaces ’intentionally’ for no apparent reason (and none offered) or ‘legitimate’ is used when in one instance it means ‘necessary’ or ‘genuine’ and in another ‘legal’. And how on earth is this part of the Guidance to Rule 9.11 to be interpreted while following the actions of players ? :-
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 (with the hand, foot or body) Is the offence ‘positioning’ ? Is the offence ‘intent’? (it can’t be either can it?) How, in any case, is the intent of positioning ‘seen’?
I opened with a question that was thrown up in 2010 because of an ambiguity caused by the use of the word ‘shot’ when there was no shot as a shot is defined. That’s the sort of thing that happens when Rule amendments (or Mandatory Experiments) are ‘tacked onto’ existing Rules instead of being integrated within them – the wording of the original Rule or Rule Guidance being modified to accord with the change. For example:- 9.7 Players must not play the ball with any part of the stick when the ball is above shoulder height except that defenders are permitted to use the stick to stop or deflect a ball entering the goal at any height. would have made the opening question unnecessary.
It’s quite extraordinary that with the introduction of the deflected own goal it does not appear to have occurred to the EHL Rules Committee that a deflection off a defender towards the goal could raise the ball to above shoulder height. But when Rule is inadequate for a circumstance that should have been foreseen, it cannot be just ‘forgotten’, it must be corrected. Umpires who understand the Rules ask for such corrections to be made and are in the meantime guided by their Association or Umpire Manager, so everyone is ‘on the same page’. Hockey umpiring is not about “MY game” or “MY level” or “MY interpretation of wording”.
The difference between a Rule and a Tournament Variation. Tournament regulations.
The first words in the current Rules of Hockey
Responsibility and Liability Participants in hockey must be aware of the Rules of Hockey and of other information in this publication. They are expected to perform according to the Rules.
The first part of a recent FIH Execuitive ‘announcement’ published on the FIH website.
The FIH Executive Board held one of its three annual meetings last weekend in Lausanne. It was the first time that the board had met since the elections of the new members at the FIH Congress in Kuala Lumpur last November and several items were on the agenda during the busy two days.
Most notably, the Executive Board decided to implement a 45-second shot clock for all penalty corners. After seeing that the time taken for penalty corners was gradually increasing, the Executive Board felt this was an important measure to speed up the game while still giving teams enough time to prepare for penalty corners. The rule is set to take effect in time for the Women’s Hockey World League Round 4 tournament in Argentina.
That announcement caused some confusion because the Rules Of hockey cannot be changed before the issue of the next rule book in 2015. WHWL Round 4 is in November 2013. It turns out that this announcement concerns an additional Tournament Regulation applicable only at FIH International Tournaments and is not a Rule of hockey, such that all participants need be aware of. The FIH Executive did not communicate correctly.
The misunderstanding caused became a spat on a hockey related website.
“Of course it does, as evidenced by the original post on this thread. When an announcement’s wording is somewhat ambiguous like it is here, having experience with years of rules and regulation changes at the FIH level helps establish context and the obviously not-so-common sense that informs the conclusion reached by posters other than you on this question.”
Well. There you are then. I don’t know what at the FIH level means even though, having been involved in both hockey stick manufacturer and coaching of International teams, I have years of experience of changes made to the FIH Rules of Hockey and also to Tournament Regulations, but it flows quite well and there are lots of words used.
I guess that participants need not worry about understanding the Rules of Hockey as long as they are aware that there are some and also know that there are kindly people who will sometimes give their opinion of the meaning and purpose of them – if asked very nicely. These opinions might in some instances turn out to be accurate, once unraveled and translated into Plain English, but in most cases I wouldn’t put any money on it: there not much evidence of participants performing according to the published Rules of Hockey at present.
.
The cause of this particular break down in communication doesn’t require years of experience of rules and regulation change at FIH level to solve. All the necessary information, including a copy of the current Tournament Regulations is to be found on the FIH website. The new additional tournament regulation will take effect before the Women’s Hockey World League Round 4 tournament in Argentina in November 2013.
.
It is good that the FIH Executive pay attention these things, even if not very carefully, but it’s similar to putting a new door-bell on a house that has sinking foundations and a leaky roof, useful but not a priority.
A question asked on a hockey related website. …an attacker aims to cross the ball into the circle and it either jams off a defenders stick attempting to make a tackle or raises off another player (defender) further away and the result is the ball looping up into a crowded circle. ……………………… Free Hit or Penalty corner?
An opinion and advice given by a senior umpire. An aerial is a pass. An inadvertent deflection is not. Please don’t apply the aerial rules to every instance of a ball in the air because that is absolutely not the intended use of the rule.
The Rule.
9.10 Players must not approach within 5 metres of an opponent receiving a falling raised ball until it has been received, controlled and is on the ground.
The initial receiver has a right to the ball. If it is not clear which player is the initial receiver, the player of the team which raised the ball must allow the opponent to receive it.
I disagree with the advice given. This is a Rule designed to prevent dangerous play when the ball is in the air and falling, whether or not the ball has been passed from one player to another, or is intended as a pass, is irrelevant.
It’s not a well written Rule because every ball which is raised to any height will fall and there is no indication of the height the ball must reach before the rule comes into force, but general practice seems to be that the Rule applies to a ball falling from above shoulder height, commonly from well above head height.
There is no indication of horizontal distance travelled either or of the method of propulsion, so the ball could be scooped 50m or more or could go almost straight up and down again as a result of a deflection – there is no mention of intent. It is not, on the other hand, so badly written that the above advice could be inferred as true from what is given, there is no ambiguity other than the relevant height.
There is no indication within the Rule that it refers to a ball deliberately passed with a scoop or lob or flick, what are commonly referred to as aerial balls when the ball is raised over distance – and usually considerably above shoulder height. The term ‘aerial’ does not appear in the Rules of Hockey at all.
This same umpire was advising another questioner, a few months ago, “The aerial Rules do not apply to a shot on goal“. I can’t see any grounds for that deduction either. It is unwise, even pernicious, for a senior umpire to offer personal opinion of dubious truth, which might be taken as official FIH Rule Guidance, when it is no such thing: in fact the advice given is the opposite of what a reasonable person would deduce from the wording of the Rule.
I deduce from the Rule wording.
When there is a deflection of the ball up off a defender’s stick and it loops into a crowded circle from outside the circle, play must be stopped if the ball is going to fall among players who might contest for it, but I can’t see an offence there. There are two incidents of poor skill; the attacker played the ball too close to the defender, so the defender got a stick on it but failed to stop the ball. Neither is an offence, a bully seems correct.
If a deflected ball is falling to a player of either team in space inside the circle and there is no danger directly from the flight of from the deflection, then the only thing that might give rise to penalty is an encroachment infraction. Depending on which side is doing the encroaching, a free ball or a penalty stroke should be awarded (with a card in both cases).
Timing of the whistle is very important. The umpire needs to wait to see if danger is likely to develop – if not the whistle is not necessary the game can continue – if yes, then the potential danger must not be allowed to actually occur.
Field Hockey. Interpretation of Rules and Rule Guidance.
Consider the following statements and conclusion.
Nothing is better than eternal happiness.
A ham sandwich is better than nothing.
Therefore, a ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness.
Nickerson (1986) Quoted in Thinking and Deciding by Jonathan Baron
Common sense tells us that the conclusion is not logical even if the difference between the first “nothing” and the second one is not consciously examined. .
When considering two terms that are abstract, but perhaps more mundane than “eternal happiness”, and comparing them with other abstracts, rather than objects like ham sandwiches, the duplicity (or lack of thought) might not be so evident and it may be a great deal more difficult to apply ‘common sense’ to dismiss (or correct) similarly ‘odd’ conclusions.
The “Nothing” which begins the first sentence is a short way of saying”There is not anything” or “No known thing”. In the second it means “not having anything”and the conclusion given in the third line does not follow from these terms.
It only takes a moment to reflect on the meaning of words in the context in which they are used in writing to come to a rational or ‘common sense’ interpretation of the meaning intended by the writer at the time of writing each of the first two dispirit statements. The conclusion is of course a deliberate ‘play on words’, a pun.
We use such shortcuts all the time when speaking to each other. Generally, but not always, the context of the conversation makes the use of such colloquialism acceptable and understood in the way the speaker means them to be understood. (“having nothing” is an oxymoron in this context and the oft heard “I ain’t got nothing” is an ‘accepted’ nonsense in speech which people ‘know’ – but often don’t understand, even when it is pointed out to them, so ‘accepted’ is the meaning – means the opposite of what the words should convey).
In writing, it is usually necessary to be more careful about jargon, slang and short-cuts of expression, because in the absence of the person ‘speaking’ they can be ambiguous, as we have seen. Care is especially required when writing rules (about anything in any area) which not everyone wants to accept or obey (If there was a law which everyone wanted to accept and obey at all times and forever, that law would be unnecessary). In such circumstances ambiguity may be exploited, even to the point where the law or rule is interpreted and the interpretation accepted and then applied in a way opposite or divergent to that intended by those who drafted it. Many lawyers make their livings from such ambiguities – creating them and/or defending or prosecuting the results of them.
The practice of law in an office or even a court-room does not have the same time pressures and need for rapid communication as the umpiring of a hockey match. When an umpire says “foot” or “feet”when asked why the whistle was blown s/he will rarely ( if ever) say “voluntarily made ball/body contact” but that should be what is meant. It is inevitable that short terms will be used on the pitch and jargon will be used between umpires when talking about Rules and the application of them to incidents in hockey matches. It is also almost inevitable that over time they will be misunderstood or misused.
The danger is that the original meaning or intent of the Rule and Rule Guidance may be lost in such communications, Not everyone interprets given words in the same way. The original wording may not be consulted very often, and both personal opinion and personal bias will have an influence on how words are interpreted. “Foot”, for example, has come for many to mean any ball/foot contact no matter how caused or unavoidable; in fact those who insist that no unintentional ball/foot contact can be an offence (which is presently true) seem to be in the minority.
The ‘cascading’ of verbal interpretation as a means of coaching – in preference to using the written rulebook - is a serious problem. Passing information accurately between individuals ‘by word of mouth’ is known to be notoriously unreliable (each one in the chain perhaps adding their own ‘slant’ or ‘spin’ and/or leaving out ‘unimportant parts’) but we seem to be ‘stuck ‘ with that approach. Because of it we have various ‘interpretations’ of “legitimate”, “dangerous”, “benefit”, “attempting”and “voluntarily”; We have “positioning” seen as an offence and so, apparently, is “intention”.
The published Rules of Hockey are far from the path to eternal happiness but these variable interpretations of the Rules seem to be ‘sandwiches’ – of myth and invention – made by ‘hams’. Lady Mondegreen will enjoy her picnic.
Field Hockey. An FIH Umpire recently declared “There is no gap between Rule application and the FIH Rules of Hockey“. Having seen many of the televised matches of the hockey tournament at the London Games and observed that:-
No ‘on target’ shot at goal will be considered dangerous play, even if the ball hits and injures a defender.
Wild and dangerous use of the stick is generally ignored.
All ball/body contacts are penalised as if they are intentional playing of the ball, unless opponents can play-on with advantage (in the circle that means score a goal). All video referrals in this area asked a question about “contact with the ball” never “Did the defender play the ball?” and intention was never mentioned.
Ball shielding to prevent an opponent, who intends to play the ball and is within playing distance of the ball, from playing the ball, is no longer an offence.
Moving bodily into an opponent while in possession of the ball is no longer an offence.
Bodily blocking out-runners at a penalty corner is no longer considered third-part obstruction or barging.
Intentional raising of the ball with a hit is not now considered an offence in any part of the field.
The hard forehand edge hit is no longer an offence.
It is no longer necessary to even attempt to make the ball stationary before a free is taken.
Same team members are permitted to be within 5m of a free taken in the opposing 23m area, even if they do directly influence play.
(The Rules of Hockey for 2013-15, which have been recently published, not surprisingly, do not contain any of these changes).
I have to agree there is no gap. This situation could not be described as ‘a gap’. A better analogy would be “Ships that passed in the night some years ago and are now in different oceans – one, called the Rules of Hockey, is however sinking, apparently deliberately holed below the water-line, and it may soon be lost without trace. The other may be called Interpretation or Application, but as there appears to be no documents associated with this vessel, it is impossible to be certain what it is called. The information there is has come by word of mouth: it could be a pirate, it’s certainly unauthorized.
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?
A statement by a senior umpire recently posted on a closed Internet field hockey board.
Despite what some would have you believe, there are no major conflicts between the rule book, how that is interpreted by FIH umpires and how the FIH wants the game blown.
Let’s take another look at that statement. What is the umpire who wrote it claiming? Well he declares you are being lied to by “some” who claim there are major conflicts between:-
1) The content of the rulebook and the way the FIH want the Rules ‘blown’ (applied).
2) What is written in the book and how that is interpreted by FIH Umpires – i.e. conflict about the meaning of the language used in the Rules and Rule Guidance and also conflict about the purpose of the advice, Rule and Rule Guidance that is given in the rulebook – the intent of the Rules.
3) The way the content of the rulebook is interpreted by FIH umpires and how the FIH want the Rules applied.
I agree there is no conflict between the content of the rulebook and the way the FIH wants the Rules applied. The Rules are drafted by the FIH Rules Committee and approved by the FIH Executive. In matters of Rules for Conduct of Play, equipment specs and related areas, theses two bodies are “the FIH”, so what is written in the Rules of Hockey is what the FIH want. This degree of truth lends credence to the falsehood that there is no major conflict.
The conflict is in areas 2) and 3) How FIH Umpires (or any other group of umpires) choose to interpret and apply the Rules and Rule Guidance i.e. how they interpret what the FIH want or in other words, how they interpret what the FIH Rules Committee have published in the Rules of Hockey.
The same individual who wrote the quoted statement has suggested on the previous occasions he has submitted the same declaration (at least half-a-dozen times previously), that if umpires were not doing what the FIH wanted they (the umpires) would not continue to be reappointed. There is something in that, but then who replaces them? Umpires who have been trained in the same way by the same people who coached the current crop? It is not as easy to make sweeping changes as we might like after years of verbal ‘cascading’ of personal opinion. This is not a matter of trimming a few dead branches, the whole tree has to be uprooted and a new one planted, the core is rotten.
The FIH Appointments Committee should not have anything at all to do with the drafting and adoption of Rules and Rule Guidance, and (in theory) the FIH Umpiring Committee only a consultative role, pertaining perhaps to the impact on or difficulty for umpires in applying changes made to Rule or Rule Guidance i.e. those drafted by the FIH Rules Committee for approval by the FIH Executive. To this end the FIH Umpiring Ciommittee produce the UMB (Umpire Managers Briefing for Umpires at FIH Tournaments) – which is NOT the Rules of Hockey and can never conflict with the Rules of Hockey, but in fact the UMB is used to alter the the intended application of the Rules of Hockey.
Going back to 2) - Who or what is the conflict of the FIH Umpires with and why is there conflict? The answer is a) the meaning of language b) common sense and c) fairness – so, everybody and everything – and it is done in the name of ‘consistency’. So how are they getting away with it?
They get away with it because they are almost unchallenged, largely because of a general apathy, and because they issue statements in Internet forums like the one above – along the lines ‘We are right so we must be right’ e.g. “This is what other (or all) FIH Umpires do” are typical ‘conclusive arguments’ – statements and attitudes designed to resist and repel any ‘outside’ influence on how they umpire.
FIH Umpire Managers and FIH Umpire Coaches behave as if they ARE “the FIH”, even some individual FIH Umpires do so and can become furious if their opinion is challenged. They like to treat everybody outside the umpiring fraternity as if they are players under their authority on a pitch during a hockey match – where questioning may be treated as dissent and met with punishment. “Despite what some would have you believe, there are no major conflicts between the rule book, how that is interpreted by FIH umpires and how the FIH wants the game blown.“
The conflicts ‘boil down’ to understanding the meaning and intent of the Rules and Rule Guidance provided by the FIH Rules Committee. Major conflict is easy to demonstrate.
Major conflict: No reading of the Rule 9.8 or any other Rule could possibly lead to the conclusion that an on target shot at the goal cannot be dangerous play.
Major conflict: No reading of Rule 9.12 could possibly lead to the conclusion that the player attempting to tackle in the picture shown is not obstructed – but quite obviously neither player is expecting an ‘obstruction’ call and the umpire did not recognize the ball holder’s actions (or lack of action) as obstructive play – ball shielding to prevent a legitimate tackle.
Previous umpiring practice has led to ignorance of the Rule – and not only this one. How umpires apply the Rules, not what is written in the Rules of Hockey, has come to dictate what the Rules are or are perceived to be.
.
.
.
.
Major conflict: No reading of Rule 9.9 could possibly lead to the conclusion that intentionally raising the ball into the circle with a hit is not an offence or can be ignored unless dangerous.(It is sloppy of the FIH Executive to allow contradiction of this point in the UMB )
Major conflict: No reading of Rule 9.11. could possibly lead to the conclusion that all ball/body contacts are offences and that any ball/body contact may be penalised. FIH Umpires and others will be quick to point out in forums and in conversation that they completely agree with this observation, but ‘in practice’ all ball/body contacts are treated as offences.
Major conflict:No reading of Rule 13.1 (Procedure for taking a Free Hit) could possibly lead to the conclusion that, having taken a self-pass when an opponent is still within 5m, the taker is then entitled to move the ball 5m before that opponent may challenge for the ball or otherwise influence the play of the taker (Here again what has been added to the UMB – taken from previous umpiring interpretation – contradicts the Rule Guidance given in Rules of Hockey). If you have any doubt about that then read the Rule and Rule Guidance.
My name is ‘some’ and I am one of thousands who disagree with the statement that there is no conflict between the published Rules of Hockey and the way in which they are applied.
Field Hockey: Dangerous play and ball/body contact myths
There are a number assertions for which no support in Rule or Rule Guidance is to be found but which are firmly held to be true by many participants. By umpires (because of coaching and observed ‘practice’) and by players (because of the way umpires apply the Rules). The latter is called ‘player expectation’ by umpires and is used as a justification for continuing to interpret and apply the Rule in the way they do. This process gives rise to ‘urban myths’. I am going to explore here those myths connected to the various Rules which are brought to bear when one player plays the ball at or into another, or a player ‘plays’ the ball with their body, intentionally or otherwise.
The myths
The assertions made in these ‘myths’ are generally corruption, misinterpretation or even inversion of Rules or the Rules Guidance. Occasionally they are pure invention, the creation of a myth based on the acceptance of a previous evolved myth called ‘practice’.
“All ball/body contacts should be penalised” (are offences). A contradiction of the Rule Guidance It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player. The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball or if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way.
. “Defenders have an obligation to defend their feet”(and should be penalised if they fail to do so even when contact is forced by an opponent). Here an assumption is made that any defender positioned to intercept the ball or positioning to tackle, who is hit with the ball, intended to be so hit (without the intent there would be no offence). There are no grounds for such a sweeping assumption, each incident must be judged separately on clear evidence of intent or willingness to be hit with the ball.
The speed with which the offence of forcing such contact (specifically an offence until 1st January 2011) has been turned into an offence by the player the ball is forced into, is astonishing. Such forcing is now supposed to be dealt with by “other Rules”so it should still be considered an offence – the problem is that the “other Rules” have not been identified by the Rules Committee, but dangerous play and intimidation are both possibilities where the forcing is powerfully done.
. “All ball/body contacts are of benefit or advantage to the player making the contact and disadvantage opponents”. Not only is this untrue it is irrelevant. Gaining benefit from a ball/body contact is not an offence and nor does it create an offence. The gaining of a benefit is mentioned in the Rules in relation to the playing of advantage when an offence has been committed. It is no longer used to create an offence from a breach of Rule (such as stopping the ball with the body) that was not an offence (because it was not intentional). Advantage : it is not necessary for every offence to be penalised when no benefit is gained by the offender ; unnecessary interruptions to the flow of the match cause undue delay and irritation”.
Note this advice to umpires is written in relation to offences, not unintentional breaches of Rule.
The only other reference to gaining benefit is in relation to time-wasting.
In the absence of an offence, like deliberate time-wasting, disadvantaging opponents is part of the game, being competitive – tackling, scoring goals etc. etc.
.
“Defenders who are positioned behind their sticks intend to play the ball with their body if they miss it with the stick. Without clear evidence of intent to use the body to play the ball i.e. of an offence, there is no reason a player should not be directly behind the stick when stopping the ball . Positioning the body behind the stick is a standard playing technique when it is not known to which side of the body the ball might be played and is not of itself evidence of intent to play the ball with the body – the assumption must be that if the player misses the ball with the stick when attempting to play it with the stick, such a miss is unintentional, and in such circumstances body position is not relevant (assuming the player is on her/his feet rather than lying or sitting or kneeling on the ground)
.
“A defender who is positioned on/in front of the goal-line when hit with the ball must be penalised with a penalty stroke” I have heard this one trotted out at Level One umpire induction courses on several occasions but it can be true only when there has been no prior dangerous play i.e. the shot is not dangerous and the player hit has clearly and intentionally played the ball with the body rather than the stick.
Certainty that there has been a deliberate offence is required before a penalty stroke may be awarded. The withdrawal of the ‘gains benefit’ clause has, unfortunately, removed the only ground on which the accidental prevention of a goal with the body could have been penalised.
.
“A defender positioned on the goal-line causes danger”. It is an illogical inversion of fact to suggest that the positioning of the defender is the cause of dangerous play. Such positioning can cause the play of the player propelling the ball to be dangerous but does not cause the play that is dangerous. If the ball is not propelled at (the position of) another player there can be no dangerously played ball. The distinction may seem subtle even though it isn’t, and language can used to bamboozle those not paying attention, but one might just as well say that the ground causes rain to make it wet, as suggest that defensive positioning prior to the ball being propelled causes dangerous play or is dangerous play.
What is true is that any player who raises the ball at another player at a velocity that could cause injury to that player has endangered that player i.e. has played the ball in a way that is dangerous to others.
.
“A defender who positions on the goal-line accepts any risk of so positioning” ( Is “asking for it”).
FIH statement from the Preface to the Rules of Hockey.
Responsibility and Liability Participants in hockey must be aware of the Rules of Hockey and of other information in this publication. They are expected to perform according to the Rules. Emphasis is placed on safety. Everyone involved in the game must act with consideration for the safety of others.
All players accept the risk of accidental injury but do not, and cannot be expected to, accept risks associated with any action by another participant that is a breach of the Rules.
For example Rule 13.3.1 (concerning second and subsequent shots at goal during a penalty corner – which is the same criteria as in open play) It is permitted to raise the ball to any height (while shooting at the goal) but this must not be dangerous. Defenders do not accept the risk (and nor should they be asked or expected to) that a ball will be intentionally propelled at their position (at them) in a dangerous or reckless way. They do accept the risk of, for example, accidental deflections, rebounds and miss-hits. It is disingenuous for a shooter to claim s/he was shooting at the goal and not at the player who was, prior to the shot, positioned in front of the goal on the line of the shot or moving towards the ball on that line. The responsibility to play without endangering another player applies, as does the liability for doing so.
.
“An ‘on target’ shot at the goal cannot be dangerous play.” This myth is (a very dangerous) invention. It seems to be based on (the unfortunate) fact that there is now no means of penalizing a shooter for reckless or dangerous play when a first shot at the goal at a penalty corner is propelled at an opponent at below knee height. Despite there being no height limit mentioned in Conduct of Play Rules, we have an exception to the possibility of ‘dangerously played ball’ just for the penalty corner shot – any defender struck with a shot which is below knee height must be, – penalised with another penalty corner, this is mandatory (so much for the subjective judgement of umpires). I consider this an aberration because a defender will be penalised even if obviously trying to play the ball with her/his stick, and irrespective of any recklessness or intimidation on the part of the shooter, this is contrary to other Rule.
. “Defenders have time to move out of the way of a ball that is propelled (raised) at them from more than 5m, so such a ball cannot be dangerous play.” An invention using inverted logic. 5m is the minimum distance within which a ball raised at an opponent above knee height will be considered dangerous, not a maximum distance, beyond which dangerous play is impossible. A ball propelled at another player could be considered dangerous play at any distance on the field of play, there is no upper limit.
.
“Defenders voluntarily play the ball with the body if they had time to move out of the way of a shot, don’t do so and are hit with the ball.“ There has to be clear intent to play the ball with the body. Voluntarily means willingly. A player is not willingly hit with the ball if s/he is trying to play it with the stick or is unsighted and unaware of the path of the ball or if attempting, but not succeeding, to take evasive action. To suggest that a player who could have moved out of the path of the ball (was physically able to do so) and therefore should have done so, has committed an offence if s/he doesn’t do so, is simply assuming intent whenever a player is hit with the ball. To suggest that there is a significant difference between intentionally and voluntarily in this context is ‘playing with semantics’ in an effort to make words mean what they are wanted to mean.
Another type of willingness to be hit with the ball might arise if a benefit was to be gained by being so hit but an umpire would have to be certain of the intent before penalising, there must be evidence not just an assumption.
‘Playing’ with semantics and ‘bending over back-wards’ to penalise a player hit with the ball just encourages reckless and dangerous play from any player propelling the ball towards/through opponents and achieves the opposite of the purpose of the Rule. Umpires should not be assisting either party to circumvent Rule or the intent of the Rule – even if that might make the game more interesting or spectacular; it is not the job of an umpire to provide entertainment.
.
“Whether or not a ball propelled at a player is a dangerously played ball depends on the level of play of the players, that is on the ability or skill of the players concerned.” This seems plausible until one considers what it is that makes any ball dangerous to any player (all players having approximately the same reactions times and all being of ‘flesh and bone’). It is the potential of the propelled ball to injure if the player is hit with it. That potential to injure and the degree of possible injury depend on the velocity of the ball and the height at which it is propelled. A player who is able to play a high ball that has been propelled at her/him has been as much endangered by that ball as a player who cannot. It is endangerment not actual injury that makes a ball dangerous. A ball that forces self-defence (rather than the taking of evasive action) to avoid injury, would be a better description of a dangerously played ball. The distance from the defending player the ball is propelled from is relevant only inasmuch as beyond a certain distanced, depending on ball velocity, it will be possible for the player to react to the ball (if s/he is aware of its path).
What goes to the root of the problem of the dealing with the ‘dangerously played ball’, is that it is a subjective judgement by the umpire. Objective criteria such as height and distance are used in only a very limited way, velocity is not mentioned at all. The plain fact is that a ball that is raised at high velocity at any player is potentially dangerous to that player, it forces her/him to respond to avoid injury, irrespective of his ability or skill to avoid or cope with the danger presented.
.
“An out-running defender at a penalty corner who runs towards the ball is a “suicide runner”, because s/he is“running down the barrel”, and should be penalised for dangerous play.”
Unless such a defending player clearly intends to use the body and not the stick to play the ball there is no offence. Terms such as ‘suicide runner’ should never have been used in this context. The first shot at goal during a penalty corner does not have to be raised or propelled from a set position, the scenario is presented is false. It is as if an out-runner were running into the path of a projectile, compulsorily fired, on a short fuse, from a static gun position – the truth is the shooter has choices and should not choose to endanger an opponent who is closing on the ball.
.
“A defender who closes on the ball when it is in the possession of an attacker who is taking a shot at the goal (or is about to) is guilty of dangerous play.”
Unless such a defending player is clearly intends to use the body and not the stick to play the ball, s/he has not committed an offence. A defender is entitled to defend and that includes closing on the ball and attempting to block the shot with the stick or tackle for the ball.
.
The relevant Rules.
9.8 Players must not play the ball dangerously or in a way which leads to dangerous play. A ball is considered dangerous when it causes legitimate evasive action by players.
9.9 Players must not intentionally raise the ball from a hit except for a shot at goal. Players are permitted to raise the ball with a flick or scoop provided it is not dangerous. A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous. If an opponent is clearly running into the shot or into the attacker without attempting to play the ball with their stick, they should be penalised for dangerous play.
9.11 Field players must not stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their body.
It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player. The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball or if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way.
13.3. l. For second and subsequent hits at the goal and for flicks, deflections and scoops, it is permitted to raise the ball to any height but this must not be dangerous. A defender who is clearly running into the shot or into the taker without attempting to play the ball with their stick must be penalised for dangerous play.
Otherwise,(that is if the defender is not attempting to play at the ball with their stick) if a defender is within five metres of the first shot at goal during the taking of a penalty corner and is struck by the ball below the knee, another penalty corner must be awarded or is struck on or above the knee in a normal stance, the shot is judged to be dangerous and a free hit must be awarded to the defending team.
The definition of a dangerously played ball is that it is “a ball that causes legitimate evasive action”. That statement alone should have been sufficient to prevent the creation of several myths, but it tells us only (and only in part) what a dangerously played ball is, not what other actions could constitute dangerous play, or even what ‘legitimate’ means (does it mean legal or genuine?) or what could possibly make any evasive action taken to avoid injury not legitimate.
These omissions have provided scope for ‘interpretation’ that have led to to various conclusions and this has been taken full advantage of. Why anyone would want to take such advantage to invert a previously accepted meaning of ‘dangerously played’ and even to remove the concept of the dangerously played ball from the game in certain circumstances, generally when what might be considered dangerous play is a shot at the goal, is outside the scope of this article.
The existence of the term ‘legitimate evasive action’ lends credence to the argument that evasive action can be legitimate in both meanings of the word i.e. necessary (or genuine) and also legal (or within the Rules).
Evasive action is not necessary, or indeed even a possibility, if a defending player is not positioned in the path of a ball that has been propelled by another player, such evasive action defines and is caused and is legitimized, by a dangerously played ball.
Being positioned in the defended goal or anywhere else (except the opponents’ goal) must be therefore be legal i.e. legitimate play, because otherwise no evasive action could ever be be legitimate and the term would not be used. Whether or not evasive action is legitimate i.e. necessary or genuine is a matter of umpire judgement, but it is also a player judgement, depending entirely on circumstances a player finds herself/ himself in. When the ball is raised high at a player at high velocity (and we here talking of a ball propelled at anything from 60 -100 mph), from within 14m, is difficult to see how an umpire could declare evasive action as unnecessary by any player at any level. (‘High’, in terms of height, could usefully be defined as an objective criteria).
It is not illegal for a defender to defend the goal either by staying in the goal on the goal-line or in front of the goal-line, nor is illegal for a defender to close down on an attacker about to shoot to try to intercept the ball with the stick or tackle for the ball with the stick, the goal could not be defended if a defender was not allowed to be in or to defend in the area between a shooter and the goal.
Legitimate evasive action is not in fact a sufficient description of a dangerously played ball when the ball is propelled at another player in a way that could endanger them, because evasive action is not always successful and because defenders may also be endangered when they have not taken or even attempted to take evasive action, either because they were physically unable to do so (lack of time to react) or because they were unaware that evasive action might be necessary. Either could be the case if a defending player was unsighted at the time the ball was propelled in their direction. It is also more than possible (very likely) that an umpire would not know if a defending player was unsighted when the ball was propelled in their direction.
I know it ‘sucks’ but the fact that it is against the Rules to propel the ball at another player in a way that endangers them, makes it much more difficult to score a goal than it would otherwise be. And playing the ball at or into the legs or feet of an opponent is not a legitimate way to ‘win’ a free or a penalty corner – in fact penalties against opponents are not (or should not be) ‘won’ (‘manufactured’) intentionally at all – passing and dribbling skills have to be developed and then used in a legitimate way.
.
Link to Index of Ruleshttp://wp.me/p3tNmd-3
I would like to make some observations about a Internet field hockey forum post :- (which is now pinned to the top of the Umpiring Section of that forum as an example of moderation in debate)
But first, here it is as written in full.
Dangerous shot on goal.
Every internet forum has had these debates, and the strong opinions have led to a deal of nastiness.
There are two extreme positions: – if it is a shot, it cannot be dangerous (any danger is the defender’s fault for being there); – the danger rules are being ignored, with too many dangerous shots allowed as goals, or injured defenders penalised with a PS.
On the occasions when the flame wars have subsidied enough to let reasonable contributors reach a consensus, that consensus has been:
- it all depends on the shot, the speed and distances involved, the skill-level of defenders and attacker, the state of play, the importance of the competition, and many other factors known only to those who were there… – at the highest levels of hockey, very little is judged as dangerous, on the assumption that defenders have the skill to take on almost any shot – … but umpires might still follow the guidance to Rules 9.9 and 13.3L, that a shot striking someone within 5 metres above the knee, can be considered dangerous – at beginning and social levels of hockey, inexperienced players must not be left feeling unsafe, and wild shots should be penalised to encourage attackers to care for safety – … so umpires can reasonably extend the ‘within 5′ to 7, 10, or even 14, and sometimes rule it ‘dangerous’ even if the ball misses everyone – at the majority of hockey in-between, it is back to the umpire’s judgement, based on experience, what they’ve read on the Internet, and discussions in the bar – … so after a game with such a decision, you’ll have this debate with a fellow umpire and a couple of other players .
******************************
I seems to be entirely reasonable doesn’t it? In fact it is a quite skilfully put together mix of truth, opinion, falsehood and contradiction, which ends with a picture of umpires and players happily chatting at the bar, an image that provides the necessary ‘feel good’ factor and general agreement of ‘everyone’ the author wants to impart.
A second look.
Every internet forum has had these debates, and the strong opinions have led to a deal of nastiness.
True, I have been on the receiving end of a great deal of this ‘nastiness’.
There are two extreme positions:
This is an extreme position.
- if it is a shot, it cannot be dangerous (any danger is the defender’s fault for being there);
An example from the 2010 WWC
The following statement is not an extreme position, it is the truth.
- the danger rules are being ignored, with too many dangerous shots allowed as goals, or injured defenders penalised with a PS.
Penalty stoke awarded
This one was ‘only’ a penalty corner. I have no idea what offence the defender was supposed to have committed.
The following sentence give the impression that reasonable contributors hold neither of the views given above – false – and that there is a consensus of opinion among reasonable people, (which by definition excludes those who hold the given ‘extreme’ views ) – this too is a false statement. On the occasions when the flame wars have subsided enough to let reasonable contributors reach a consensus, that consensus has been:
- it(whether or not a ball has been played dangerously) – all depends on the shot, the speed and distances involved, the skill-level of defenders and attacker, the state of play, the importance of the competition, and many other factors known only to those who were there… Nice mix, part true, part false, part irrelevant – and some parts missing. A closer examination:-
- it all depends on the shot, the speed and distances involved.That’s a promising start but it needed to be more precise. ‘It’ depends on the height of the shot, the speed (velocity) of it, the distance away from a player from which it was propelled, and, most importantly if it was at a player and forced self-defence.
-the skill-level of defenders and attacker, the state of play, the importance of the competition,All irrelevant as to whether or not a ball has been propelled in a dangerous way – has endangered a player.
- and many other factors known only to those who were there.
“the shot, the speed and distances involved” are also factors known only to those who ‘were there’. Other factors, such as obstruction, impeding, intimidation, sight-blocking, nature of stoke (forehand edge hit for example), can all be mentioned in written guidance for players and umpires, as acts that can lead to a dangerously played shot: it is not necessary to “be there” to know the kinds of actions that are prohibited and therefore should be watched for (umpire) or not intentionally carried out (players). For prevention prior knowledge of these things by players and coaches is essential – this is most consistently provided by written guidance in the issued rulebook , not after the event (of dangerous play) post-match in a bar, although such discussions can be helpful in individual cases.
- at the highest levels of hockey, very little is judged as dangerous, on the assumption that defenders have the skill to take on almost any shot. The near extreme view but only because it does not say “no shot” but “ very little” without explanation of the “very little” that is judged dangerous ( I think it is a shot that is going wide of the goal that may be judged dangerous – the same shot on target not so – a situation which I don’t understand and have been unable to obtain a logical explanation for), and the reason given is here different: no longer the outrageous “the defender’s fault for being there” which is usually offered(the defender cannot be called ‘at fault’ for attempting to defend and it is only possible to defend a shot at the goal from a position between the goal and the shooter), but the seemingly reasonable “on the assumption that defenders have the skill to take on almost any shot” ; the “almost” not expanded upon and what would be considered beyond the skill of players of the highest level not explained. Note that the attackers are not expected to have the skill to avoid propelling the ball high at a defender or to accept responsibility for doing so.
The absurdity of the assumption made about the skill of a defender can be demonstrated with an analogy:-
A motorist drives his car through a pedestrian-crossing while there is a pedestrian in his path and when prosecuted for dangerous driving defends doing so by claiming that the pedestrian, who was already on the crossing as he approached, should not have been there because he knew car drivers used the road. Not a defence. His next line is that the pedestrian knew that he was in a position where he could be hit by a car and also had or should have had the skill to jump out of the path of his car and avoid injury and was therefore responsible for his injury – caused it – : not a defence.
Here is an an example of what I consider to be the taking of legitimate evasive action at the highest level, the Gold Medal match of the Olympic Games. The umpire awarded a goal, I have no idea why; the shot was clearly made directly at the position of the ‘post player’ at about head height and endangered that player.
The prior positioning of a defender is reason not to propel the ball high (which needs defining) at that position i.e. at her/him but to take an alternative action. The positioning of a defender in front of the target goal does not indicate acceptance of an irresponsible – reckless – and/or dangerous action by an attacker, i.e. illegal actions. The defender accepts, as all players do, the possibility of injury because of accidental actions, miss-hits or deflections for example, but such accidental actions may still be penalised as dangerous.
The skill of the defender is irrelevant, what is relevant is the propensity of the ball to injure the player (any player) it is propelled at – which depends on the velocity, the height and also the distance from the player from which the ball is propelled – that in turn forces a player to self defence, either by trying to evade the ball to avoid injury or trying to play it with the stick, (success in either is irrelevant, the ball is still played at her/him in a dangerous way). The forcing of self-defence is critical in the judgement of a dangerously played ball – it actuall defines it – but it was omitted in the original post.
- … but umpires might still follow the guidance to Rules 9.9 and 13.3L, that a shot striking someone within 5 metres above the knee, can be considered dangerous
Guidance to Rule 9.9 reads “is considered dangerous” not “can be” (the FIH Rules Committee have declared such a stroke to be dangerous) and there is no height mentioned – so presumably a ball propelled at any height could be considered dangerous – it would certainly be incorrect to say that a ball propelled at a player below knee height cannot be dangerous. Nor is there any suggestion within the Rules that a player who is beyond 5m of the ball cannot be endangered by the way in which the ball is played. Guidance to 13.3.l, specific to the penalty corner, does not cancel out the guidance to Rule 9.9 – although the presence of both obviously causes some confusion.
Guidance Rule 9.9. A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous.
- at beginning and social levels of hockey, inexperienced players must not be left feeling unsafe, and wild shots should be penalised to encourage attackers to care for safety.True, the same can be said of all levels of hockey.
- … so umpires can reasonably extend the ‘within 5′ to 7, 10, or even 14, and sometimes rule it ‘dangerous’ even if the ball misses everyone.True, think, as an extreme example, of a shot taken on the volley at a falling ball near the edge of a crowded circle.
- at the majority of hockey in-between, it is back to the umpire’s judgement, based on experience, what they’ve read on the Internet, and discussions in the bar
- … so after a game with such a decision, you’ll have this debate with a fellow umpire and a couple of other players .
Note, no mention of the Rules of Hockey but in the absence of any guidance but that given to Rule 9.9., and with the definition of a dangerously played ball being “a ball that causes legitimate evasive action” , when umpires often interpret evasive action from players who are known to be skilled as an attempted ‘con’, the present rules relating to a dangerously played ball are hopelessly inadequate and players and coaches will seek explanation.
We are left with the subjective judgement of umpires, and that too is often hopelessly inadequate for the proper and fair protection of defending players facing an attacker in possession of the ball, especially when the umpire subscribes to the first of the “two extreme positions” – as many do.
Example: current FIH Umpires have stated on Internet hockey forums that defenders in front of the goal causes danger by their positioning, and position so with the intention of using their body to play the ball if they miss it with the stick. It is not known on what evidence or authority these assumptions are based. There is also absurdity in the claim: when there are two ‘post players’ positioned during a penalty corner are both of them causing danger at the same time, when they are more than 3m apart or is it only the one the ball is propelled at who is to blame?
Example of practice: The umpire in the following clip informs a defender in a match during the 2010 Women’s World Cup that an on-target shot at the goal could not be dangerous, and awarded a penalty corner against the defender (for being hit?) The shot, a raised edge hit from about 5m, struck the defender on the thigh.
Such umpires (and those who coach them) are dangerous to players because of these (extreme) views,they do nothing to discourage the dangerously played ball – in fact they encourage it. We can only speculate about what would have followed if during the penalty corner the umpire insisted on awarding, despite the ‘petulant’ protests of the Spanish players that the initial shot was dangerous, a defender had been injured, as Irewin of Cookstown was (fractured skull), in the EHL game shown above.
It is obvious that the dangerously played shot can no longer remain entirely a subjective decision – that is entirely the opinion of an umpire without reference to any objective criteria, if the ball is propelled at another player from more than 5m. - it all depends on the shot, the speed and distances involved and so it should but this statement is not acted upon, there is no means of making these judgements. It’s not difficult: when the ball is propelled high at a player we have one objective judgement “at a player”; added to that we could have a subjective judgement, but one to which the player defending can contribute, “at a velocity that could injure” – the defender then takes the decision to attempt to play or evade the ball. (Players are presently forced to attempt to play at the ball when a shot at the goal is made ‘through’ them, because evasion just leads to the award of a goal). Then we could have another objective judgement, height. I suggest “at above elbow height”; and finally, ‘distance’, another objective judgement.
Velocity and distance will together determine ‘time to react’ in a defensive way. Velocity and height will together determine the nature of the danger, the degree of injury that could be inflicted.
A high velocity ball propelled at a player at above elbow height would then be considered dangerous play – even if it was a shot at the goal from within the circle.
Within a day of my writing the above article someone on the hockey forum from which the original comment was taken, posted this:-
” There are already posts in other places discussing how this is completely untrue and unworkable and that the option they put forward is the only workable option.”
Which illustrates the problems we have with interpretation and opinion and bias. I have suggested an alternative approach: I did not say it was the only possible one or that the original post was completely untrue – but that it was false or mistaken in parts. I noted where it was true and where false.
It is this kind of biased, untruthful and irresponsible response (from an umpire who has previously declared he would award a penalty stroke against a player hit on the head while defending the goal on the goal-line) that leads to polarization of opinion instead of sensible debate and compromise – not that player safety should ever be compromised by the opinions of an umpire .
What criteria should be used to describe a dangerous shot is certainly open to further discussion: once it has been accepted that the present criteria – subjective judgement alone - is inadequate, which it obviously is if these decisions are prejudged i.e. are not in fact subjective at all, but predetermined irrespective of the facts in each case. Sensible discussion will however not take place.
The link below is to a typical example of an attempt (in 2010) to discuss dangerous play in connection shots raised at a penalty corner that hit a defender at head height. There are two examples given from the same tournament. It is clear from the replies given that a high shot going wide of the goal that hits a defender will be considered dangerous – but a shot that is on target will not be. No reasons for this difference of interpretation are offered, it just seems to be taken for granted. This suggests that umpires consider it an illegitimate action for a defender to defend the goal from in front of the goal or as they would put it “the defender accepts the risks”. But intentionally raising shot at – through – an opponent will endanger that opponent and is dangerous play, which is contrary to Rule, and so not an accepted risk. When the ball is intentionally raised at a player in a way that forces self-defence that player is entitled to expect the umpire to penalise the player who raises the ball at him.
Few Internet hockey forum threads have got much further than that one and there have probably been around fifty attempts since 2006 on that particular forum to explore the issue. Umpire coaches and senior umpires simply refuse either to engage at all or to give a reasonable answer to the questions raised. Those that do respond often do so just in order to prevent any discussion – as is the case in the example above. The respondent to the second incident mentioned in the thread was by the umpire involved (who also tried to ‘kill’ the topic with her first post). She acknowledges that she was wrong to award a penalty corner after a shot that was going wide of the goal hit a defender at head height, but there is no doubt at all that she would have awarded a penalty stroke if the shot had been ‘on target’ and the defender hit in the same way. Presumably the defender and not the attacker would have been seen in that case to have caused the dangerous play.
Following the death of Lizze Watkins, in Australia in May 2012, there was a call for provision for the wearing of helmets for field-hockey playing from a doctor in Perth, whose daughter plays hockey, reported in a newspaper article. The doctor said she saw and treated many hockey related head injuries from ball contacts. She also said she had written to the hockey authorities many time suggesting Rule change but was just ignored. An ill mannered reply was made to her reported comments from a hockey player. I am not in favour of the introduction of helmets for field players in hockey (I think they would lead to an even more cavalier attitude to dangerous play – as the introduction of face masks for penalty corners has) but I agree there needs to be rule change – so I replied to his comment pointing out the danger of the present interpretation in regard to the raised shot at goal, especially the drag-flick at a penalty corner. This is what he wrote in reply.
Martin Conlon penalty corners are another story all together I believe in the higher grades the posties should have to wear a mask and with saying that everyone that plays hockey know the risk and still choose to put themselves in the line of fire. Rules state everything goes in the D IF you are having a direct shot at goal if you choose to stand there knowing full well that’s the rule they are there at their own risk. It’s not a wimpy sport if you can’t deal with it don’t play it and stay at home and knit.
Rules state everything goes in the D. This guy does not know the Rules and should not be allowed to play until he has demonstrated that he does. The scary thing is I have in the past received similar comments on this subject from practicing umpires, and even those coaching novice umpires: dangerously clueless people who should not be entrusted with overseeing a hockey match.
The FIH Rules Advisory Panel for field hockey was formed in 1993 and mentioned in the Preface to Rules of Hockey 1998, as a body that would oversee Rules Trials.
The Future : Over the years, the Hockey Rules Board (HRB) explored changes to the Rules through the use of Experimental Rules. We have now reached the stage when it is considered appropriate to undertake a number of Trials of possible new Rules before they are formally introduced as Mandatory Experiments. Such an approach will enable a proper evaluation of some quite radical changes.The Trials, which National Associations will be invited to undertake, will be conducted by the Rules Advisory Panel (RAP).Full details of these ideas have been sent to National Associations. If will be their decision whether the Trials take place. The main areas for consideration include the penalty corner, larger goals, direct hits into the circle from free hits, ball not being stopped before a shot at goal during the penalty corner and having a broken line 5 metresoutside the circle. Opinions on these and related activities should be sent to Roger Webb, Co-ordinator of the Rules Advisory Panel.
Where the suggested rules for trial had come from and who besides Roger Webb was involved in the RAP remained unclear, but this umpire coaching document authored by John Gawley has been confirmed by Roger Webb to reflect the thinking of the RAP .
It is the most conflicted document written about the application of the rules of hockey that I have read. It also appears, in part, to form the basis of much of the current muddled ‘interpretation’ of defensive actions and the dangerously played ball. Some statements in it are the near or direct opposite of others so it reads like a list of alternative approaches rather than a coaching document or advice to umpires.
As far as I have been able I have highlighted like statements in one colour and grouped conflicting statements in another – one group has been generally ignored the other adopted. Which is seen as ‘positive’ for the game and which ‘negative’ will depend on the predisposition of the reader.
Some of the rules and guidance mentioned in the document have since been deleted, I have indicated this in green italic within the text on the first occasion only that each such rule or guidance is referred to. My comments have also been inserted in green italic.
The document has been very selectively used by umpire coaches. The reader will recognise the parts that are current application or ‘interpretation’. The result of this selection has been the development since of some very ‘slanted’ interpretation of player actions and of the written rules and guidance – which has in turn led, it appears, to the deletion of safety rules which were previously thought to be important.
*************
The Lifted Ball
2001
By John Gawley. Level 3 Umpire Coach.
No player should ever be put into a position of self-defence against a ball put into the air at any height, be it 15 or 50 centimetres. (now generally ignored when the defending player is more than 5m from the ball and always ignored when a shot at goal is made)
A player having to face a ball approaching in the air should have a clear view of the full flight of that ball and also have time either to move out of its way, or to play or attempt to play it in a legitimate and safe manner.(ignored)
So far as Goalkeepers are concerned, they deliberately put themselves “into the firing line” but are equipped to do so. Nevertheless, even they can be forced into self-protection rather than protection of their goal by dangerously-raised balls. (ignored)
INTENTIONAL LIFT
- Lift at an Opponent
If the ball is intentionally put into the air at an opponent at any height anywhere on the pitch in contravention of Rule 13.1.1 f: (Rules numbers changed in subsequent years, Conduct of Play became Rule 9)
(“Players shall not play the ball dangerously or in such a way as to be likely to lead to dangerous play”) and Rule 13.1.3b (“Players shall not intentionally raise the ball so that it lands directly in the circle” ( this Rule later deleted) the player who raises the ball is in breach of the Rule.
(There was also aRule 13.1.3dA player shall not raise the ball at another playerextant in 2001, which was deleted after 2003. Gawley, strangely, neglected to mention it here)
Furthermore, the shot may be dangerous or likely to lead to danger. Such a shot may legitimately be defended by the hand in accordance with Rule 13.1.2 a. (“Players shall not stop or catch the ball with the hand. There is nothing to prevent players using their hands to protect themselves from dangerously-raised balls.” (this guidance was later deleted)) That statement stands despite the fact that Rule 13.1.3 a (“Players shall not intentionally raise the ball from a hit except for a shot at goal”.) permits a shot at goal to be made at any height. A raised shot has to be made at goal, not deliberately at a defender standing either in goal or between the goal and the striker.
- Tackling Lift
There is nothing in the Rules to prevent any player in possession of the ball from lifting it over the stick of an opponent to resist a tackle, be it in the outfield, in the circle, or entering the circle, provided that the condition of Rule 13.1.3 b (“Players shall not intentionally raise the ball so that it lands directly in the circle.”) (replaced with a prohibition on intentionally raising the ball with a hit except when making a shot at the goal) is met. The last point is important: where the ball is lifted in such a manner over an opponent’s stick and enters the circle while still in the air, there is NO offence.
- Tactical Lift
When a ball is deliberately raised in a legitimate manner anywhere on the pitch the umpire should decide upon its merits as advised in the Rules Interpretations of the Rule Book. This form of play is used for tactical purposes, often to reverse the opposing defence. In general, it is fair to say that players who raise the ball in this manner, usually by scooping, consciously try to avoid danger to anyone in the flight path of the ball. The umpire is therefore seeking reasons why such a raised ball SHOULD be penalised. A player receiving a dropping ball should be given time and space in which safely to do so without real or threatened interference from an opponent. (Rule 13.1.3 c “Players shall not approach within 5 metres of a player receiving a falling aerial ball until it has been played and is on the ground.”) (this is very loosely applied, now opponents approach without penalty to within 5m of the receiving player as soon as the ball is played) Note that the ball, having been intentionally lifted in this way, may not fall into the circle.(no longer applicable, flicks and scoops may be played into the circle)
ACCIDENTAL LIFT
On the other hand, the ball is often raised accidentally, usually by a stick interfering with the flight of the ball, rather than by any deliberate attempt to play it.(????) In such circumstances, the ball is likely to fly upwards in an unpredictable trajectory, thus being both dangerous in itself and likely to cause danger. A ball hit some 15 cm in the air into a crowded circle is an example. The Umpire, therefore, is likely to be seeking reasons why this raised ball should NOT be penalised but should wait to determine whether this actual danger.. (? unfinished)
Interpretation
No matter where on the field the ball is raised, and no matter what the circumstances of the lift, the umpire must always judge whether a player has been genuinely endangered in any of the ways described. Umpires should be on their guard against players who simulate ducking out of the way of raised balls simply to try to “con” them into thinking that such a ball is dangerous. Similarly, umpires should not be misled by defenders, often in goal, who allow themselves to be hit by the ball so as to be able to claim that the shot was dangerous.(apparently now adopted as the standard thinking about ‘Legitimate evasive action)The same standards of judgement must be applied wherever and whenever the ball is raised. It is therefore important that umpires recognise, and agree before each game according to the level and playing conditions of that game, what is the likely distance inside which those particular players are likely to have to defend their own persons instead of playing the ball properly.(ignored if player more than 5m from ball) Other factors need to be considered for raised shots at goal, however.
RAISED SHOTS AT GOAL IN OPEN PLAY
The goal is there to be shot at. The goalkeeper is well-protected and has no grounds for protest about high shots at goal. So far as any other defenders are concerned, if they stand in the goal to defend high shots, they must accept the penalty if the ball hits them contrary to Rule 13.1.2 b (“Players shall not intentionally stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their bodies.”). They can be said, perhaps, to have arrogated to themselves the duty of goalkeeper without having goalkeeper’s privileges. High shots include hits, flicks and scoops.(note the assumption made that a defender who is hit with the ball had the intention to be so hit)Having said this, it must nevertheless be remembered that no player should ever be put to the necessity of self-defence, and that includes goalkeepers. Although properly protected, goalkeepers can still be injured by balls projected at them from so short a range and in such a manner that they are unable to adopt a naturally protective posture. In high level games, with physically fit, young, skilled players, it is possible that the minimum safe distance for a rising shot is about (than)? 3 metres. In less skilled games, that distance will probably be not less than 9 metres and could be more (reaction times have nothing to do with skill, Gawley confuses anticipation with reaction) . In all cases, the distances may increase dependent on other circumstances, not least whether the players defending the goal have a clear view of the whole flight of the ball from the moment that it is first propelled upwards. Judgement of what is dangerous must necessarily be subjective (That is not entirely true: height and distance are objective criteria which are actual and readily estimated by eye to a high degree of accuracy, and are thus suitable for the making of consistent decisions regarding a dangerously played ball . Subjective judgements are matters of opinion rather than of measurement e.g. “a ball velocity that could cause injury”, which is not a difficult subjective judgement or, where it is relevant, “intent” , which may be very difficult to discern. Fortunately intent where there is dangerous play is irrelevant ). Perhaps the soundest advice for the umpire is to consider that any raised ball is dangerous unless proved otherwise.In general, it is probably fair to say that a rising ball that would not be permitted on the grounds of safety in the outfield should not be permitted, for the same reasons, in the circle, whether for a shot at goal or, indeed, for clearing a shot at goal – a goalkeeper’s kick, for example. The exception is that the intentionally raised hit is permitted in the circle for a shot at goal; otherwise the same parameters apply. Note, however, that this advice is concerned mainly with high shots in OPEN PLAY. In these circumstances, there are usually few players in the circle and, as often as not, the shot is made in a one-on-one situation (this may have been true before the Off-side Rule was abolished but is no longer) . During Penalty Corners, where numbers of players are required by the Rules to operate within the circle, other considerations apply, all concerned primarily with Safety.
Summary
During open play, rising shots at goal are permitted provided the defending players have time to defend the goal rather than themselves. No player should EVER be permitted to raise the ball, anywhere on the pitch, that is dangerous to other players. If defenders other than goalkeepers dressed in protective clothing or helmeted “kicking backs” (who have goalkeepers’ privileges in the circle), elect to defend their goal, then a shot that would have been permitted against a fully-equipped goalkeeper should be permitted against them. And if they stop or play the ball with their bodies or sticks above their shoulders (above shoulder defending of a shot at the goal was not permitted in 2001), they should be penalisedunless they were endangered. ( it is difficult to see how a lifted shot of high velocity would not endanger the player it was lifted at- it would certainly force the defending player to either self-defence or evasive action - which defines a dangerously played ball)
RAISED SHOTS AT GOAL AT PENALTY CORNERS AND FROM CORNERS
- Players in the Circle
The Penalty Corner demands a maximum of 5 defenders behind their back or goal-line and places no limit on the number of attackers round the circle, though in practice the attackers usually number six or seven. There can thus be twelve or so players in the circle during the conduct of a Penalty Corner. For a Corner, and for other forms of Hit-in and Free Hit to the attackers where there has been a delay in play so as to allow players to gather in and near the circle, there is no limit to the numbers of players who may be in the circle. Eighteen players were counted on one occasion. Hits to the attack from the area of corner flags (corners, hits-in & free hits) are rightfully taken in open play, They are considered here with the Penalty Corner as likely to cause crowding within the circle. It can thus be seen that any ball raised into or within the circle in such circumstances has a great potential for danger. Such crowding underlines the need for umpires to judge whether players in the flight path of a raised ball have time properly to react to it. This is not to say that all raised balls in the circle are dangerous, nor that balls raised unintentionally into the circle are necessarily dangerous, but merely to indicate the potential for danger and hence the need for acute awareness and observation by the umpire.
- Penalty Corner
The defenders (including the Goalkeeper) are prohibited from deliberately raising the ball from a hit within the circle, or indeed outside it – Rule 13.1.3 a applies. The attackers, however, MAY deliberately raise the ball from a hit or other type of shot in the circle, but only for a shot at goal – not for a hit across the circle, for example. The one caveat to this permission is that the FIRST hit at goal at a Penalty Corner must comply with Rule 15.2 l (“If the first shot at goal is a hit, the ball must cross the goal-line at a height of not more than 460m (the height of the backboard) for a goal to be scored, unless it touches the stick or body of a defender.” (since amended)
Generally, the ball that is raised in the circle has a possible element of danger. But remember that any player may raise the ball over the stick of an opponent to resist a tackle. Once the first hit at goal in a Penalty Corner has been made, all subsequent hits may be at any height consonant with safety, as already described. However, still with the Penalty Corner, any other stroke to raise the ball may be made at any time, with no limit being placed on the height of the ball at any part of its flight. The only caveat on these forms of shot – usually scoops or flicks – is that of safety. And let us remember that the Penalty Corner Rule – specifically those sections applying to the first hit and the need first to stop the ball on the ground (no longer applicable) – ceases to apply if the ball goes beyond 5metres from the circle before re-entering it (Rule 15.2 (“If the ball travels more than 5metres from the circle, the penalty corner rules no longer apply”).
- The Scooped Ball
The ball that is flicked or scooped from near the inside edge of the circle so that it goes high over all heads and falls so that it will enter the goal just below the crossbar is not very likely to be dangerous when falling; the player(s) in the goal-mouth will see the ball raised, will see it during its flight, and will have time to decide how to defend the falling ball. They therefore have no excuse for playing the ball with their sticks whilst it is above their shoulders, for hitting the ball away in a dangerous manner, nor for using any part of their body to stop the ball. Only if the flick or scoop is at very short range, or if there are players in the line of sight between striker and goal, might the striker be penalised, and then usually only if the ball is still rising or if it is so low throughout its flight as to be obscured, for the receiver, by other players. Umpires should remember that the same conditions for dealing with a dropping ball apply for shots at goal as elsewhere on the pitch i.e. the player receiving the ball must be given time and space (5metres) in which to receive it safely.
- The Rising Shot
Having accepted the caveats noted above for the Penalty Corner, let us broaden thought to embrace the crowded circle. The same considerations previously mentioned still apply, i.e. the goal is there to be shot at, and defenders who arrogate to themselves the duty of goalkeeper must accept the penalty if they prevent a goal other than legitimately with their sticks.(note that the ‘perhaps’ before ‘arrogate’ has already disappeared from this (sic) new idea [of undetermined origin] – and, as above, positioning in the goal is seen, incorrectly, as an intention to use the body to play the ball) But, given the crowding already discussed, it is even more important that players defending any raised ball, regardless of its height, should have a clear view of the ball’s trajectory and have time either to remove themselves from its path or to play or try to play the ball legitimately. If they do not have such time, the ball raised at them must be considered dangerous and penalised immediately(ignored). But umpires should be on their guard against players who deliberately allow themselves to be hit by the ball so as to be able to claim that the lift was dangerous. It is the rising ball that is most likely to cause most danger, either because it can strike a player’s body, where its energy is likely to be absorbed, or because it can touch part of a stick and fly off unpredictably, with no loss of energy, to hit another player.
Summary
When the circle is crowded, such as at Penalty Corners and for hits from near the corner flag areas, there is a high potential for danger from any raised ball. Umpires must be alert to the risks involved but should not over-react merely because the ball is in the air or the body of a defender in the goal is struck by the ball. They should instead consider whether players have the necessary time and distance to avoid physical contact with the raised ball in favour of playing or attempting to play it legitimately, and not flinch from applying the appropriate penalty if avoiding action could have been taken. (There is some muddled thinking in that statement, as legitimate avoiding action – legitimate evasive action – defines a dangerously played ball ) The necessity for the first HIT at goal at a Penalty Corner not to cross the goal-line at a height greater than 460mm should also be borne in mind.
********************
The parts of the document highlighted in red are broadly the ‘current thinking’ and those highlighted in blue, even where they are part of the written rules and guidance issued by the HRB, are generally ignored. One of the most striking things about the document is, that having dismissed evasive action as an attempt ‘to con’ the umpire, there is no alternative way of determining if a ball has been played dangerously at another player offered. It’s “a subjective judgement” , but what criteria is that subjective judgement based upon in order that it may be applied consistently? The latest ‘thinking’ – that a shot on target cannot be dangerous - is a direct result of the adoption of parts of this document, but couldn’t be further away from the opening statements of it. This approach is however consistent, where no judgement relating to danger need be made – because an ‘on target’ shot cannot be dangerous – making inconsistent judgements about dangerous play is not a problem – very easy for the umpire. But is such an approach fair or in line with declared FIH policy on matters relating to player safety? I don’t think so. It may be said to be fair insofar as umpires apply it to both teams in the same way, but there is a profound unfairness evident between the approach to attackers and defenders, especially between shooter and defender in the circle.
In the same year this document was published the Rules Advisory Panel ceased to exist. Job done? It wouldn’t appear so, rules trials increased significantly after that date. Internal politics, ‘stepping on toes’ and ‘ruffled feathers’, seems a more likely reason – umpires had (openly) moved into laying down the rules – the prerogative of the Hockey Rules Board.
One of the priorities now for the HRB – in 2011 renamed the FIH Rules Committee - (if they are to retain any influence or credibility) must be to provide criteria for the recognition of the dangerously played ball: criteria that is fair, objective and can be applied consistently, without reliance on subjective judgement (the umpire’s opinion) alone. In the critical areas of the dangerously played shot at the goal and obstructive play i.e. ball shielding (both unique to hockey), umpires have demonstrated that consistency – and easy decision making – is achieved by ignoring these offences or pretending they do not exist; so umpires must confine themselves to applying the rules as given – not making or ‘reinterpreting’ them – their role in this area is to interpret the actions of players in relation to the written rules – not to ‘rewrite’ the rules (but without actually writing anything or referring to anything given by the FIH Rules Committee in the published Rules of Hockey).
********************************
The Rules of Hockey for 2013 -2015 have now been issued and include two Mandatory Experimental Rules, the Direct Lift of a free, which I have been advocating for years, and the Own Goal, which I think is a bad idea, especially as nothing further has been done to control the raised hit into the circle.
The opportunity to address deficiencies in the Rules concerning the dangerously played ball, in particular the introduction of objective criteria to define it, and the current ignoring of ball shielding as an offence has once again been allowed to slip by.
Among a number of other issues the penalty corner remains unchanged, the ban on the playing of a free ball, awarded in the opponent’s 23m area, into the circle remains, as does the mess of 5m restrictions cluttering the Self-Pass. Nothing has been done to free up the receiving of an aerial ball at above shoulder height by a player in free-space.
The Direct Lift is the one improvement, but without prohibiting the lifting of a free, awarded outside the opponents 23m area, into the circle – and so the development of set-pieces based on that – this improvement is likely to lead to more dangerous situations in the circles.
.
Edit 21 July 2012. Field Hockey. The suggested direct-lift has been adopted into the Rules of Hockey for 2013-15.
Edit 3rd April 2013. Thus far the facility to raise the ball directly from a free has not caused any ‘ripples’. The self-pass still seems to dominate restarts after a free ball has been awarded, whereas before the introduction of the self-pass the ‘touch and scoop’ was frequently used. Danger arising from facility to lift a free ball directly into the circle has not materialized, as I thought it might, mainly I think because the circle is seldom clear of opponents and the opportunity for a pass directly to an attacker (that will not be penalised as dangerous play) seldom occurs after a free ball is awarded. I wonder what might have happened if the direct-lift had been introduced first or the two measures had been introduced at the same time – which is what I had originally hoped for.
****************
Some years ago I suggested that a team awarded a free anywhere on the pitch should be afforded the facility to lift it directly with any stroke except a hit. There were two reasons for the suggestion. Firstly, it complemented the self-pass, which was suggested at the same time, because it would then be of little advantage to defenders to put a ‘wall’ around the position of a free awarded against them, to block in a self-passer. Secondly, it provided a safe alternative for the scoop combined with the (ignored) ’1m rule’ (and the need for attackers who want to lift the ball to have two players adjacent to it) – which was often followed by a defender trying to charge the ball down – more to distract the lifter into ‘fluffing’ the lift, or being inaccurate with it, than with any real hope of interception (in fact probably with the hope that the charging defender would not be hit with the ball but the scoop would be penalised as dangerous).
A suggested restriction was that a ‘lifted free’ could not be lifted directly into the shooting circle.
There were some ‘whispers’ that the direct lift would be introduced in 2006, but that did not happen. I think it is still the preferable alternative to the present ‘touch and scoop’ between the 23′s and would also resolve some of the problems the self-pass has thrown up.
Defenders do not want to retreat far from a player who they think will self-pass, but they will certainly move to guard their ‘back-yard’ if the ball can easily be lifted directly over any ‘wall’. That in turn should make openings for the shorter ground passes and for the self-pass.
Obviously the suggestion is aimed more at play between the 23′s but there is no reason the ball could not be scooped wide of the circle, or even over the circle from one side of the pitch to the other, from within the 23 areas.
The ‘Direct Lift’ or ‘Lifted Free’ solves the problem of the attackers ‘wasting’ two players in the taking of a free-ball – just as the self-pass means they no longer need to ‘waste’ even the taker of the free. It solves the passing of the ball 1m before a scoop can be made (which was ‘solved’ previously by ignoring the 1m requirement) and it solves the problem of the defender charging down an intended scoop as soon as the free is played – which in turn allows the taker to scoop the ball with greater consideration, over a greater distance and with greater accuracy – its safer.
The debates that have taken place on Internet hockey forums about a self-passer scooping the ball with a second touch, and the debate on lifting the ball over the circle, while the possibility of the Direct Lift is ignored, seem ludicrous to me.
Since writing the above passage I have come across this from the 1976 Rules of Hockey:-
14. FREE HIT.
For Women Only.
b) The ball shall be stationary. Any legitimate stroke may
be used except that any ball propelled into the circle
shall not rise above knee height.
For Men Only.
d) The ball shall be stationary and the striker shall hit the
ball or PUSH IT ALONG THE GROUND. A flick or
scoop shot shall not be permitted.
So my suggestion is not entirely new. The women were, (before the joining of the two Associations and the subsequent issue of a uniform set of rules), allowed to lift the ball from a ‘free’ even with a hit. The men were specifically forbidden from raising the ball with any stroke (men being considered more dangerous and irresponsible I suppose).
Prohibiting the direct lifting of a free-ball with a hit, but allowing it with a flick, lob, scoop, is a different approach and one that I believe would improve the game.
.
The penalty corner was introduced into field hockey the early 1900′s, to replace a bully on the 25 yard line following an offence by a defender. Very soon after an amendment to the rule made it compulsory to stop the ball (at the time within the circle), for safety reasons, before a shot at the goal (then not height restricted if hit), could be taken. Since then the rule clauses relating to the penalty corner have had more additions and amendments than any other rule, probably more than all the other rules put together, and it is still unsatisfactory. I think its introduction was a mistake and I believe that if at present we did not have a penalty corner no-one would seriously consider introducing it in its present form to the modern game. We still have it because no suitable alternative has been suggested (or at least none accepted).
I think we might however adopt from ice-hockey the concept of the power-play and use it as a time limited penalty in place of the penalty corner. Below is set out what I think is a workable replacement , which would be conducted as a small open play game , without the shooting restrictions of the penalty corner, but with a dangerously lifted ball or dangerous shot at the goal; that being being one that is 1) lifted at an opponent 2) above elbow height 3) with a velocity sufficient to force an opponent to self-defence (play the ball or evade it) to avoid injury. (The current at an opponent at above knee height from within 5m remains in place - but see post on lifted ball suggesting that 3m is here sufficient)
The penalty-play I suggest is a time limited 5 v 4 power-play. Five attackers, four defenders. It is based on the present penalty corner format, that is a ball inserted into play from the back-line by an individual attacker to other attackers (limited to four) positioned behind a line a given distance from the goal (the 23m line instead of the circle line) who will then, together with the insert attacker, try to score a goal in the time allowed, which is half a minute (trial needed to see if this time is suitable). The defenders are initially positioned as in the present penalty corner.
Penalty-play.
1 Positioning.
a. The ball is placed on the back-line inside the circle, at least 10 metres from the nearest goal-post, on whichever side of the goal the attacking team prefers.
b. Four other attackers must be on the field, beyond the nearest 23m line with sticks, hands and feet not touching the ground inside the 23m before the ball is inserted.
c. The remaining attackers and defenders must be positioned behind the centre-line when the ball is inserted.
d. Not more than four defenders, including the goalkeeper, if there is one, must be positioned behind the goal-line or back-line with their sticks, hands and feet not touching the ground inside the field.
If the team defending a penalty play has chosen to play with field players only, none of the four defenders involved in the penalty-play has goalkeeping privileges.
e. No defender is permitted to be within five meters of the ball when the push or hit is taken by the attacker on the back-line.
2 Procedure.
a. The attacking team have thirty seconds from the moment of ‘insert’ of the ball to complete their attack. If the ball is still in play after that period ‘stop time’ is blown (table or trailing umpire timing) and a 15m awarded to the defending team from in line with the goalpost they choose. (Game restated with whistle). An alternative would be for normal open play to resume, but a signal other than an umpire’s whistle would be required to indicate ‘time up’ and allow the remaining players to engage (perhaps an air-horn used by a ‘timing official’ pitch-side).
b. Game time is stopped when a penalty-play is awarded and is restarted as the ball is inserted. Timing of the penalty-play begins simultaneously with the restart of game timing.
c. The umpire blows a whistle to signal the commencement of the penalty-play and the ball may then be ‘inserted’ into play by an attacker, from the chosen 10m mark and towards the 23m line, where four more attackers have taken up positions of their choosing.
d. Defenders behind the goal-line or back-line are permitted to cross the back-line immediately the ball is played by the ‘insert’ attacker.
e. The involved attackers, initially positioned directly behind the 23m area, may move across the 23m line as soon as the ball is ‘inserted’.
f. Until the ball is inserted no attacker is permitted to enter the the 23m area (the insert player excepted because he may have one foot and possibly both in the circle if he uses a drag stroke to ‘insert’ the ball – the requirement to have one foot outside the pitch being deleted)
g. Attackers and defenders who are not initially involved are to be positioned behind the centre-line but may move up to the 23m line as soon as the ball has been played back into the 23m area. They must however remain outside the 23m area during the penalty-play and may not physically interfere with the playing of it. (Calling instructions to team-mates would not be regarded as interference but obstruction, impeding or attempting to play the ball would be)
h. After playing the ball, the attacker taking the push or hit from the back-line must not play the ball again or approach within playing distance of it until it has been played by another player
i. The ball may be played by a second attacker (the first being the insert player) before it crosses the 23m, line but a goal cannot be scored until the ball has crossed out of the 23m area and has then been reinserted into the penalty-play area (the 23m area) by one of the four attackers initially behind the 23m line,
j. Hitting the ball directly into the circle from beyond the 23m line or dribbling of the ball into the 23m area and then hitting it directly into the circle is prohibited: the ball must be played into the circle from within the 23m area after a third attacker, to whom the ball is passed by the initial receiver, has played it. (The insert player being the first player, the receiver behind the 23 line the second and a second receiver within the 23m area the third. The initial receiver may pass the ball to any one of the other four involved attackers, receive the ball a second time, and then play it into the circle.) The purpose of this compulsory pass is to prevent an immediate hard hit into the circle for the insert player to deflect into the goal before defenders can adopt marking positions. The aim is to make a penalty power play as close as possible to an open play situation, but with the advantage of a ‘man over’ and a play plan.
k. If an attacker, who was not one of the initial four between the 23m line and the centre-line at the commencement of the power play, crosses into the 23m area before the time limit of the corner has expired, a free-pass will be awarded to the defence on the 23m line at a place of their choosing. (the trailing umpire will watch for this offence)
l. If a defender, who was behind the centre-line at the commencement of the power play, crosses into the 23m area before the time limit of the corner has expired another penalty-play (and a personal penalty) may be awarded.
m. If a yellow or red card is issued to any defender during a penalty-play (including those behind the centre-line at commencement) and another penalty-play is awarded the subsequent penalty-play will be with three defenders only (and so on to two etc.). If the goalkeeper is guilty of an infraction that should result in being sent to the half-line, another defending player may be nominated to retire during the subsequent penalty power.
3 Completion.
The penalty-play is completed when:
a. a goal is scored
b. an attacker involved in the penalty commits an offence (free-pass at place of offence or 15m if closer to back-line)
c the ball is played over a side-line.
d. the ball is played over the 23m line for a second time but does not go out of play (normal play resumes)
e. the ball is played over the back-line. (intentionally playing the ball over the back-line by a defender will result in a normal play corner, not another penalty-play).
f. a penalty stroke is awarded.
g. there is a no offence stoppage which would normal play result in a bully (another penalty play will be awarded – but see article suggesting an alternative penalty http://wp.me/pKOEk-Kd
h. the time limit expires. (15m free-pass for defence) or as a trial alternative (normal play resumes).
4. Retakes
a. If a defender commits an offence, which disadvantages the attacking side sufficiently for the umpire to stop play, another penalty-play will be awarded – unless a penalty stoke has been awarded.
b. If play is stopped during the taking of a penalty-play because of an injury or for any other reason and a bully would otherwise be awarded, the penalty-play must be taken again – but see http://wp.me/pKOEk-Kd
c. If one or more of the defenders positioned behind the goal-line or back-line breaks early, that is before the insert player has played the ball, a caution will be issued and the penalty-play reset. (Persistent breaking in this way – that is once again after a warning has been issued – may be penalised with a reduction in the number of defenders and on the third occasion with a penalty stroke.)
5. Substitutions
a. Except in case of injury (see below) there will be no substitutions between the time a penalty play is awarded and the whistle to commence it is blown. Once the whistle to commence is blown the players not directly involved in the penalty-play (any player initially beyond the centre-line before commencement) may be substituted.
b. If a player is injured during a penalty-play and another penalty-play is awarded the injured player may be substituted before the subsequent penalty-play commences.
c. Neither the defenders or the attackers involved in a penalty-play are confined the 23m area while it is ongoing but the initial four from each team cannot exchange place with team-mates not in the initial line-up for each penalty-play.(It may be necessary for those nominated to take part in a penalty-play to wear a distinctive article of clothing such as an arm-band)
d. If a fully kitted goalkeeper is suspended during a penalty-play he may be replaced with another player in goalkeeping kit from within the on-field players or from the bench. If he is replaced from the bench the captain must nominate one of the players involved in the penalty-play to leave the pitch (which could be himself). Should the goalkeeper be awarded a red card he or she must leave the pitch area immediately but may be replaced and another defender nominated to retire to the half-line if another power play is awarded. 6. Overtime.
a. The match is prolonged at half-time and full-time to allow completion of a penalty-play or any subsequent penalty-play awarded or a penalty stroke awarded during the penalty-play.
There could of course be an immediate dip in the number of goals scored from this penalty (which is intermediate between a free-pass and a penalty stroke) because passing drills that will create opportunity for a scoring shot will have to be worked out, but teams should soon become as proficient at that as the small group setting up a drag-flicker are now. Ah yes, the drag-flick, won’t be required.
The ban on the intentionally raised hit in field hockey. – Dangerous lifting of the ball. Suggestions.
The hurling style lift-and-hit is not now specifically banned, as it once was, but would probably be regarded as a lifted hit; we have no idea if bouncing the ball on the stick is technically permitted, stationary or running, although it is usually allowed if not dangerous (in what circumstances this action would be considered dangerous was at one time set out in the Rules of Hockey, but was removed – I have no idea why) and the up-and-under slap-hit of a bouncing or falling ball that produces a lob-like effect, can be a spectacular skill, has never been ruled for, but is seen occasionally in the modern game.
If we take the present rule literally (how else can we take it?) the lob-hit (as I have above termed it), no matter how much attacking players and umpires would like to see it as part of the game (i.e. they would like it for attackers but not defenders – who could possibly use such a stoke to hit the ball out of the circle), is presently not legal – and the advantage gained can be huge.
I have read Internet discussions where it is suggested, as a ‘get round’ that this hit-lob might be referred to as guiding or stroking the ball rather than as hitting it ( The ‘bending’ of rule with such semantics is only a good argument for reducing subjective decision making by umpires. Where it is felt a Rule is inappropriate for game circumstances there should be lobby to change the rule not a tacit circumvention of it ).
The hurling-hit can be lethal but it is presumably now (as it is no longer specifically banned) legal from within the circle as method of making a shot at the goal.
Bouncing the ball on the stick is technically hitting it, but as the ball is not propelled beyond the playing reach of the ball holder, it could be seen as a dribbling skill. It is easy enough to make an exception for this skill as long as it is done out of the playing reach of an opponent, but the hit-lob and the hurling-hit propel the ball in ways that are only really different in terms of power (and therefore of potential danger of injury), even if the style of action (position of hands and arc of swing) are not the same. The lob can of course, like the longer scoop, result in a ball falling from above head height onto the positions of opponents who are too close to each other for safety.
The admonishment in regard to certain playing actions “but this should not be dangerous” is a prohibition that results in the award of a penalty after dangerous play has actually occurred; by itself it does not prevent injuries caused by the presently allowed (but possibly not legal) strokes, such as those I have termed hurling-hit and lob-hit, and also the blindly propelled drag-flick (the flick that is propelled at the same place each time irrespective of the positions of defenders) , all of which have a very high potential for dangerous execution: other limits are required.
The blanket ban on the intentional lifted hit in the outfield is too simplistic and, as the possible variations in lifting stroke are limited, it is possible to compose rules to either include or exclude from the game particular hitting actions used to lift the ball, and also to control the scope of those that are permitted.
Certain flicking or scooping actions are also potentially dangerous because the ball velocity will reach that of a well struck lifted hit, ( I recently read an interview of Ashley Jackson in which a claim of 100mph was made for his drag-flick – which, if accurate, is astonishing, as most good hitters of the ball have difficulty exceeding 75mph). It is obvious that because of the potential for serious injury to any player struck with a ball of such velocity (or the more common 60 -70mph), any reference to lifting the ball coupled with dangerous play must include such strokes – the days when it was possible to assume that a lifted flick or scoop would be of much lower velocity than an undercut hit are long gone.
There are four criteria that may be used to limit any lifted ball and to describe potentially dangerous play. The first is that the ball must not be propelled at a player in a way that forces self-defence, the other three are Velocity; Height; Distance. I will start with a suggestion for a rule wording to which modifications can be made and guidance added.
A player shall not propel the ball at another player at above a height of 1200mm (elbow height).
This initial suggested rule wording applies to a ball propelled from any distance where player reaction may be insufficient to allow a player targeted with the ball to make an adequate self-defence (evade, stop or control/deflect the ball) because of the velocity of the ball or because that player was unsighted or otherwise handicapped (for example, blocked, barged or otherwise impeded) at or just prior to the moment the ball was propelled. Wording for Guidance needs to be composed to include what is necessary for the reasonable safety of players from the above and the following observations.
(There can be no absolute safety and such a target would be undesirable anyway, hockey is a competitive sport with a hard ball and sticks, danger is inherent in such activity, therefore some risk of injury must be accepted by any player who takes part in a hockey game. The aim is to prevent injury as a result of actions that are contrary to Rule by describing clearly what actions are illicit and will be penalized so that players will be be deterred from intentionally carrying out these actions).
RULE SUGGESTION: The ball may not be propelled with any stroke at above elbow height at another player in a way that forces self defence.
Above elbow height is the area of the heart, throat and head and an area where a ball impact at high velocity is likely to cause serious and/or long term injury or possibly even death. A ball propelled at a player at elbow height or above and at high velocity is therefore likely to compel self-defence to avoid injury.
The usual speed at which a hockey ball is hit or flicked by a top class striker (which does not necessarily mean a highly skilled player) is at present between 60mph -75mph. A ball propelled at 75mph will travel approximately 33.85m in one second.
The average pure reaction time (time between stimulus and physical movement, using simple single tasks in laboratory experiments e.g. pressing a button when a light is lit) of a healthy individual is approximately 0.22 seconds, variation is normally in the range 0.20 secs. – 0.24 secs. Pure reaction time cannot be significantly improved by training, although minor short term reductions (two or three hundredths of a second) are possible and can be maintained with repeated training. Anticipation, on the other hand, such as the ‘reading’ of ‘body-language’ as an opponent approaches and makes the stroke to propel the ball, can be greatly improved by both training and by playing experience – this is the skill which is so often mistakenly referred to as ‘fast reactions’.
A ball propelled at 75mph will travel approximately 7.5m in 0.22 seconds. In view of the complex nature of the response required to either successfully play the ball or to evade it, even without distractions like closing attackers or impediments such as sight-blocking, it is reasonable to state that any ball lifted above elbow height and at high velocity at an opponent can, because of its potential to injure, be dangerous to that opponent. A ball propelled in this way may, if it hits an opponent, be penalised as dangerous play or intimidation or a forcing offence and dangerous play or intimidation if it compels any player to self-defence (with the stick or by attempting evasive action).
(Note: The offence of forcing an opponent into a rule breach has been removed from the Rules of Hockey 2011/13 as a separate offence in itself – I think this to be a serious error of judgement by the FIH Rules Committee)
The previous removal of the facility for a targeted player to defend himself with his hand is also contentious, especially as it was once printed in the Rules of Hockey in upper case letter to emphasize its importance. The conclusion must be that if a player believes he cannot defend himself with his stick, he should if he can, evade the ball – not defend himself with his hand. One of the problems with this conclusion is that despite ’caused to take legitimate evasive action’ being a definition of a dangerously played ball, such evasion, when the defender is in front of the goal, usually results in the award of a goal and not a free-ball to the defence for dangerous play, which logically and fairly it should – such failure to use and apply the definition of ‘dangerously played’ may lead to defenders taking unnecessary risks, risks they should not ever feel obliged to take, to defend the goal in a game.
No maximum distance limit is proposed simply because in the past any distance given has been regarded as a maximum distance, outside which there can be no ball played dangerously at an opponent, (the present , incorrect, attitude of many to the current “within 5m is considered dangerous” is that a ball propelled from beyond 5m of a player can’t be dangerous to that player). Height and velocity are the main criteria but of course (other things being equal e,g. the absence of sight blocking) the nearer the striker is to the opponent the less time there is to react to the path of the ball, and the greater the velocity the greater the potential for injury.
A maximum distance for a dangerously played ball can also be seen to be impractical when the scooped ball is considered as a cause of dangerous play or play leading to dangerous play , a limit of 10m or 15m would still leave most scoops outside the rule when considering if the ball was lifted to fall in a place where the potential for danger was apparent at the time the ball was lifted, e.g. the area between the penalty spot and the goal when players who were likely to contest for the falling ball occupied that area. (for example in the 2010 World Cup game between England and Pakistan where the English player Tindal who was positioned in the opponent’s circle hit a falling ball, on the volley, into the goal while it was being contested for by a defender, who had closed on Tindal and attempted to play the ball with his stick well above his head height ).
The previous prohibition on lifting the ball above knee height at another player who is within 5m of the ball at the moment it is propelled, irrespective of velocity, must remain but it is suggested that it be amended to apply only within 3m of the ball, not 5m.
A ball propelled to pass between the legs of an opponent at above knee height and from within 3m should be considered to be at that opponent.
High velocity is a subjective judgement.
A high velocity ball is one that has been propelled at a velocity at which, in the judgement of the umpire, if it hit a player it would injure that player.
The judgement of high velocity should not be based on supposed reaction times or skill levels (on the ability of the player to play a ball propelled at him or to evade it) but on the potential of the ball to cause injury when it is played at and forces another player to self-defence or hits him.
Where an over-height ball at a defender is intercepted with the stick successfully by that defender the umpire need take no action against the player who propelled the ball (but may do so to discourage repetition of the action if it is seen as reckless); where the defender is disadvantaged – forced to evasive self-defence or hit, particularly when the attacker had other shooting options, and especially in congested or contested situations, the umpire should penalise the shooter for dangerous play.
Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary (such as repetition of apparently targeting a defender when there were clearly other options available to the shooter, e.g. repeatedly propelling a drag-flick at a particular place in the goal when previous flicks there have forced evasive action or forced self-defence from either an out-running player or a player positioned in front of the goal ) it will be assumed that an attacker shooting at the goal when there are defenders stationed between the attackers position and the goal, is shooting at the goal and not intentionally at defenders – but hitting a defender with a ball that is propelled at that defender at above elbow height at high velocity (or above knee height from within 3m irrespective of velocity) should be seen as dangerous play, irrespective of such intent, and penalised as such.
In the same way it will also be assumed, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, that a defender hit with the ball while attempting to intercept a shot at the goal, intended to play the ball with his stick and not with his body. ( evidence to the contrary would be a player making no effort at all to play the ball with the stick when that was possible, or moving laterally into the path of the ball after it has been propelled – but again, only if there is no attempt to use the stick to play the ball)
Any legitimate* positioning in front of the goal to defend the goal prior to a shot should notbe interpreted as an intent to play the ball with the body (even if the body is positioned behind the stick) or as an acceptance that the defender can be targeted with the ball by an attacker. The notion that a defender intentionally endangers himself by taking up a defensive position in front of the goal, between an attacker in possession of the ball and the goal, must be suppressed as unsound – because it is a judgement that may be made without tangible evidence other than the fact that the player was hit with the ball, which is not clear evidence of intent to play the ball with the body.
The idea that the defender accepts all possible risks when defending the goal, even those associated with dangerous play and other illegal acts by opponents, is unreasonable: so unreasonable it is absurd. The risks defenders (and all other players) accept are those associated with legal play, not illegal play. The current climate of opinion seems to be to change what was previously considered illegal dangerous play to legitimate play, thus removing all responsibility for shooting actions from the shooter. We have reached the point where umpires are informing players that an ‘on target’ shot at the goal cannot be dangerous – such umpires are abdicating from their responsibility to see that the game is played fairly and reasonably safely. No doubt that is the easy thing to do and it is consistent but it is not fair and it is unsafe.
The umpire should try to prevent any repeat of reckless endangerment by penalising it whenever it occurs – it can occur if an attacker shoots at a defender when there are other viable ways to score, such as open space in the goal wide of the position of the defender, that the attacker had opportunity take advantage of. Whether play by an attacker when shooting at the goal is reasonable or reckless is a judgement call by the umpire, part of that judgement is the prior positioning of any defender ( an attacker should seek to avoid hitting a defender with the ball) and part the time and options available to the attacker.
*(Legitimate positioning by defenders does not include deliberately lying on the ground and other similar reckless positioning in the path of the ball, such as sitting or kneeling; the term assumes a normal on-feet playing stance by all except the goal-keeper, who may ‘go to ground’ at any time, but not make physical contact with an opponent while doing so).
Shots at the goal from within the circle.
Suggested Guidance Any shot at goal within the circles in open play (or second and subsequent shots at a penalty corner) may be propelled at the goal to any height but may not be propelled at high velocityat any player at above 1200mm. – the approximate elbow height of a male player of average height when in a normal standing position. (Adjustment to this suggested height can and should be made for women and further adjustment for junior players according to age).
A ball which passes between the point of the shoulder and the side of the head of a player will be considered to be at the player concerned. At levels below the head a ball that will miss an opponent will not be considered to be at that opponent no matter how closely it may pass outside their position without contact.
All shots at the goal from within the circle made at below knee-height from any distance will (subject to reckless play) be considered legitimate. An above knee-height shot at the goal that is also at a defender – but is below 1200mm – should (subject to reckless play) be considered a legitimate shot at any velocity from any distance beyond 3m.
All else being equal (e.g. there being no prior offence by the attacker to take into consideration and the shot cannot reasonably be considered reckless e.g. if the attacker did not have other target options or the time to choose an alternative shot), if a defended other than the goalkeeper is struck on the body with a legitimate shot at the goal and thereby prevents a goal, a penalty stroke may be awarded. This is because the purpose of the game is to win by scoring goals and there is no other measure of winning, so an unfair benefit will have accrued to the team of a player who prevents a goal other than by legitimate means, and adequate compensation for this unfairness must be given to the attacking team. This penalty is also necessary to prevent reckless defending.
If the defending player did not clearly intend to play the ball with the body but prevented a goal a penalty-stroke is sufficient penalty (the option of a penalty-goal is not available in these circumstances**); where there is clear intent to use the body to play the ball the defender concerned should also be suspended.
**(there is a reasonable case for the introduction of a penalty goal in cases where a certain goal has been prevented by clearly deliberate use of the body by a defender other than the nominated goalkeeper – this would prevent defenders being reckless enough to deliberately move to put their body in the way of a shot, without an attempt to use the stick, in the hope that the subsequent penalty stroke will be missed).
If a defender is hit with a shot or other ball propelled inside the circle by an attacker but he does not certainly prevent a goal (e.g. there being other defenders behind the one hit when the shot at the goal was made) then all else being equal (e.g. no clear intent by the defender to use the feet/body, no injury to the defender, no reckless play by the attacker)play should continue. An unavoidable or accidental ball/body contact is not an offence and there is no reason other than an offence (or injury) for the umpire to stop play or penalize when there is a ball/body contact. There is ample evidence that penalizing accidental or unavoidable foot and body/ ball contacts will probably encourage reckless shooting at the goal or the deliberate forcing of such contacts by attacking players in possession of the ball. It is in fact much more reasonable to penalise an attacker for gaining a benefit from a ball/body contact in the opponent’s circle than it is to penalise a defender for such a contact – unless a defender makes such ball/body contact intentionally.
Much of what has been written above will apply particularly to the drag flick when it is used as a first shot at a penalty-corner and the ball is lifted high at the goal; such drag flicks need have no height limit as long as they are made at a part of the goal that is open at the time the stroke is executed, not made directly at a player.
Lifted ball in the areas outside the circles.
In this proposal the dangerously played ball rule is the same everywhere on the field of play, i.e. a ball may not be propelled at a player at high velocity at above elbow height anywhere on the field of play.
Outside the circles the ball may be lifted in any direction to any height with any stroke except a hit.
I propose that the ball should also be permitted to be lifted with a hit to elbow height when play is outside the circles , but must not in any circumstances be lifted with a hit to above shoulder height – such play will be considered either dangerous or time-wasting (it will probably be necessary to devise an exception for the lob-hit mentioned above).
Allowing the lifted hit in the outfield would make it necessary to reintroduce a prohibition on the lifting of the ball with a hit directly into the circle. This ban should apply to a ball lifted directly off the stick of the striker and directly into the circle, not to deflections off the surface of the pitch outside the circle. But any deflection of a hit from outside the circle, off the ground or off the stick of a team-mate out-side the circle should be required pass into the circle at below knee height and not rise to above knee height during its flight within the circle. Flicks,scoops and lobs into and from within the circle to remain unrestricted in height except where the flick or scoop is from a free ball. A free ball should not be lifted directly into the circle with any stroke in any circumstances.
The hurling-hit i.e. lifting the ball with the stick and then hitting it before it falls to ground or on the half-volley, as it bounces up from the ground after such a lift, should be banned in the outfield and not permitted as a shot at the goal when there is a defender other than the nominated goalkeeper between the shooter and the goal. (For the purpose of this particular suggestion, a field player standing in for a goalkeeper as a ‘kicking back’ i.e. wearing only a helmet as additional protection, should be treated as a field player, not as a fully equipped goalkeeper)
An attacker receiving a raised ball in the circle may take a shot at the goal on the volley only if the ball is below elbow height when he hits it, but if he does carry out this action he should shoot downwards towards the goal (but not so as to cause the ball to bounce up off the pitch above knee height before it crosses the goal line), essentially he should not not raise the ball into the goal higher than it was when he hit it and also not dangerously or recklessly. Alternatively he could control the received aerial ball to ground and then shoot at the goal without height restriction, but of course not dangerously or recklessly.
ADDITIONAL FIELD EQUIPMENT .
A brightly coloured strong woven tape, no more than 50mm wide, to be run from the back of each goal-post and around the back of the goal-net and supports at a height of 1200mm. The front and sides of goalposts will be marked with paint or plastic sticking tape at the same height and at the same width.(The goal tape can be adjustable and may be lower for junior players). The alternative discussed here:
A first hit shot at a penalty corner which is raised sufficiently above 460mm to make it improbable that it will fall below 460mm before it reaches the goal-line should be penalised immediately that is apparent, as dangerous (or as non-compliant) and a 15m awarded to the defending team.
After the ball is inserted at a penalty corner it should not be permitted to be played by any attacking player until it has passed completely out of the circle. If the ball does not reach the circle line after it is inserted the umpire should blow the whistle when it becomes stationary, declare the ball ‘dead’ and award a 15m free - which should then be taken from any position in front of the goal and 15m from the goal – unless the defending team intercept the ball and wish to continue play – in which case normal play would resume and attackers could engage. In such a case the penalty corner would not be over until the ball was played to beyond the 5m outer circle or played out of the shooting circle for a second time and a goal could not be scored until the ball has been played out of the circle and had then been played back in.
Amended 8th February 2011
Goal tape. The straps used as cargo ties on transport are suitable. They can be hooked to the back of the goal-posts, and tensioned with elasticated ties or using an integral ratchet (which should be suitably covered for safety).
.
