Field Hockey Rules: Free Ball – Suggestions.

Field Hockey Rules. Free Hit

(which should be termed Free Ball of Free Pass or Free Start to avoid the contradiction ” A Free Hit may be lifted directly with any stroke except a hit”)

Unraveling the tangle that has been made of the Free ball since the introduction of the Self-pass. 

.

Suggestions

 

1. Delete the present Rule 9.9 Intentionally lifted hit. (It is ignored anyway UMB advice is forget lifted-think danger)

(transfer references to dangerous flicks and scoops to Rule 9.8 – Dangerous playing of the ball – where they belong).

(the ‘spare’ rule number 9.9. might then be used for a separate Rule concerning the aerial pass and the receiving of an aerial ball. A ‘falling ball’, an aerial shot – perhaps the first mention of the drag-flick -, encroaching, bouncing the ball on the stick, permitted lifting the ball with a hit  etc.etc.)

 

2. Delete the prohibition on playing the ball directly into the circle from a free ball awarded in the opponent’s 23m area. (Rule 13.2 f)

.

 

3. Delete the requirement that the ball must be moved 5m before it is played into the circle when there is a free ball  awarded in the opponent’s 23m area.  (Rule 13.2 f.)

.

The invention (it’s not  in the Rules of Hockey – so not Rule)  that a player taking a self-pass before opponents have been given opportunity to retreat 5m,  be allowed to run or move the ball 5m without interference or influence from opponents – which is extraordinarily difficult to umpire correctly – can then be quietly forgotten.

.

4. Replace the above 1 -3 with a ban on :-

a) in any phase of play, open or penalty – any raising of the ball directly into the opponent’s circle with a hit

(meaning a hit that transfers or is intended to transfer possession of the ball away from the hitter – not the clipping of the ball to raise it over an opponents stick while dribbling and the intention is to retain possession of the ball – knee height limit) 

.

b) the lifting of the ball into the circle to above knee height with a deflection or directly with any other stroke.

.

c) any raising of the ball directly into the circle from a Free Ball.  

(Scoops that land outside the circle to be permitted to bounce into circle – subject only to danger and to the encroaching Rule). 

.

5.  The requirement (13.2.c)  that a same team player be 5m from a free awarded in the opponent’s 23m area should be deleted.

.

6. An offence in the hash area that results in the award of a free to the attack should be taken from the place of the offence, but played out beyond the hash line before it may be played into the circle. (Revision of 13. 1 b.)

.

That lot sorted out:-

.

 

7. Then if a Free-ball is played by the taker as a Self-pass before opponents have had opportunity to retreat 5m, that is treated as an advantage played and normal play resumes immediately the ball is moved. Opponents who do not immediately retreat on the whistle for an offence (intentionally cause delay to the restart whistle – see point 8) may receive personal penalty and where appropriate, a penalty corner may be awarded (this encourages rapid compliance of the Free ball 5m requirement by the side the penalty is awarded against).

.

 

8. Institute a double-whistle system. First whistle stops play when there is an offence which is penalised. Second whistle signals resumption, the second whistle to be blown immediately the ball is stationary and within playing distance of the offence (no more than 2m).

(this encourages rapid compliance of free ball requirements by the side awarded the penalty and also helps to prevent control of the game ‘running away’ from the umpire, because free balls are then no longer taken without attempting to make the ball stationary or position it within playing distance of the offence – the game cannot resume without the second whistle).

.

 

As now, play on is the preferred option whenever possible – a delayed card is probably a better deterrent than the award of an immediate Free ball when a player commits an offence within the defended 23m area, especially within the hash area, that does not warrant the award of a penalty corner.

. 

The current Rule (in blue) with the advice (in red)  from the UMB tagged onto it  (which is not part of the official Rule or Rule Guidance).  The advice from the UMB should be deleted, where other deletion or amendment is suggested (as above) that is indicated in black bold .

13.2 Procedures for taking a free hit, centre pass and putting the ball back into play after it has been outside the field :

.

All parts of this Rule apply as appropriate to a free hit, centre pass and putting the ball back into play after it has been outside the field.

.

a.      the ball must be stationary

.

b.      opponents must be at least 5 metres from the ball.

.

If an opponent is within  5 metres of the ball, they must not interfere with the taking of the free hit or must not play or attempt to play the ball. If this player is not playing the ball, attempting to play the ball or influencing play, the free hit need not be delayed (and additional words from UMB not in the rule book): this same player can play, attempt to play the ball or try to influence play, once the ball has travelled 5 metres.

.

c.     when a free hit is awarded to the attack within the 23 metres area, all players other than the player taking the free hit must be at least 5 metres from the ball

.

d.     the ball is moved using a hit, push, flick or scoop

.

e.      the ball may be raised immediately using a push, flick or scoop but must not be raised intentionally using a hit

.

f.      from a free hit awarded to the attack within the 23 metres area, the ball must not be played into the circle until it has travelled at least 5 metres or has been touched by a player of either team other than the player taking the free hit.

.

If the player taking the free hit continues to play the ball (ie no other player has yet played it) :

– that player may play the ball any number of times,   but  (a better description of the taker of a free ball playing the ball and immediately resuming open play while retaining possession of the ball is needed)

– the ball must travel at least 5 metres, before

– that player plays the ball into the circle by hitting or pushing the ball again.

Alternatively :

– another player of either team who can legitimately play the ball must deflect, hit or push the ball before it enters the circle, or

– after this player has touched the ball, it can be played into the circle by any other player including the player who took the free hit.

.

It is permitted to play the ball high above the attacking circle so that it lands outside the circle subject to Rules related to dangerous play and that the ball is not legitimately playable inside or above the circle by another player during its flight.

.

There is a strong objection to the altering of the text of the published Rules of Hockey - even if alteration is only by adding of phrases or clauses to existing Rule to make it ‘fit’ with other alterations to the Rules.

.

The published Rules of Hockey are drafted by a sole appointed authority, the FIH Rules Committee, (who while drafting Rule consult, over a long period,  with many different parties including the FIH Umpiring Committee ).  All draft Rule is then offered to the FIH Executive for formal approval.  If the Executive do not approve any aspect the draft is sent back for revision (even the Executive cannot just amend the wording of a draft) and is then resubmitted .. . and so on.  Just adding an additional clause to the Rules of Hockey in the UMB (a FIH Umpiring Committee publication) flouts that laid down procedure and is therefore unconstitutional: such changes have no validity.  If it were possible for a UMB to legitimately change the wording of Rule or Rule Guidance there would be no point in having an FIH Rules Committee or an established procedure under which that committee operated. Information about these procedures is set out on the FIH wed-site in FAQ and in various pdf documents which may be read and/or downloaded.  

.

Actually adding text in the UMB is not the worst that can (and does) happen. Advice like the following can occasionally be found in local Umpire Association Handbooks :-

“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.”  That advice – a true example –  is a direct contradiction of the Rule Guidance. But at least most of the individuals who write such things don’t often pretend to be ‘authority’ and can be identified and corrected – however much of this sort of ‘coaching’ is verbal and may even be denied to be occurring.

.

Worse than aberrations by individual umpire coaches, are proclamations by TDs, UMs or Umpire Coaches that video showing the interpretation of particular incidents in action, such as those produced with the sanction of the FIH Umping Committee on the Dartfish website, are definitive – more definitive than the written Rules of Hockey (because it is  -some have said –  often difficult or impossible to put things into words). A look at the given  Interpretation of the Action  provided with some of these videos –  see the article Willful Blindness  http://wp.me/pKOEk-Og   – together with a viewing of what is being described and a reading of an alternative written interpretation, should be sufficient to convince most people that the written descriptions (interpretations) offered on the website do not always match what is being shown, and also that words are essential to  Rules and  Rule Guidance:  in fact I would suggest that if something cannot be put into words it cannot be put into Rule.  Video is only a means of showing example of what it is that is being described in writing.  Not all will see and interpret the same incident in the same way by visual information alone (which is why, while umpiring, different umpires may interpret player actions in entirely different ways – the differences between individuals often depending on their knowledge of hockey and of the abilities and likely intentions of hockey players)

.

I feel, however,  that the most pernicious alterations are those that are ‘cascaded’ from an indeterminate  source (they may even only become public knowledge via television commentators  who have been hurriedly updated on ‘current practice’ ). The notions, that an ‘on-target’ shot at the goal cannot be considered dangerous play, and that shielding the ball to prevent a tackle is no longer an offence, fall into this category.   These notions are held to – “because ‘everybody’ does it that way” and “it’s expected” despite, with ball-shielding,  clear written evidence to the contrary –  Rule 9.12.  and when  ’dangerous’ is supposed to be a subjective judgement based on legitimate evasive action. Declaring any ‘on-target’ shot cannot be dangerous, is not a subjective judgement – it’s objective – what is being judged is whether or not a shot is on target (only if a shot is wide of target is ‘danger’ considered at all – which isn’t even rational).

.

The most difficult inventions to dislodge may however be those that are presented in writing by Umpiring Associations as Rule Guidance “from the FIH”  because they are in the UMB.  between  Rule from the FIH Rules Committee and advice given in a UMB.  It is not easy to get the people at or near the top, in any organization, including the FIH,  to observe their own procedural rules if they do not feel like doing so.

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

.

Field Hockey Rules: Conflicting interpretation

Legitimate.

1. Conforming to laws or rules or to accepted or established  principles or standards.
2. Valid – able to be defended with logic or justification as necessary.
3. Genuine

Legitimate evasive action.

An action taken to evade the ball which is necessary to avoid the possibility of being injured by it.

A dangerously played ball is a ball propelled by one player in a way that gives cause for legitimate evasive action by another player. As always it is necessary to give the relevant Rule.

.

9.8 Players must not play the ball dangerously or in a way which leads to dangerous play.

A ball is considered dangerous when it causes legitimate evasive action by players.

9.9 Players must not intentionally raise the ball from a hit except for a shot at goal.

Players are permitted to raise the ball with a flick or scoop provided it is not dangerous. A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous.

If an opponent is clearly running into the shot or into the attacker without attempting to play the ball with their stick, they should be penalised for dangerous play.

.

The above Rules are all that are given in the Rules of Hockey concerning the dangerous playing of the ball in open play.

The Penalty Corner Rules 13.3. further limit A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous by declaring that any stroke that raises the ball and strikes an opponent who is within 5m, on or above the knee is to be penalised as dangerous play.

And, in addition to the height restriction of 460mm on a first hit shot at the goal

 13.3.l  for second and subsequent hits at the goal and for flicks, deflections and scoops, it is permitted to raise the ball to any height but this must not be dangerous.

Interpretation.

The syntax is poor but above Rule Guidance 13.3.l. obviously must, as it clearly states, relate to second and subsequent hits at the goal (the first being specifically restricted), and to all flicks, deflections and scoops be they first shots at the goal or subsequent shots at the goal. To permit a first flick shot to be exempt from the Rule governing dangerous play, but to apply the Rule to any subsequent flick-shot would not be logical, especially when the first hit-shot at the goal is severely height restricted and the different styles of shot travel at similar velocity

In any phase of play, open or penalty, any ball that is raised at a player, may be judged by the umpire to have caused legitimate evasive action and therefore to be dangerous play. Raised to what height? The Umpire Manager’s Briefing for Umpires declares: Low balls over defenders sticks in a controlled manner that hit half shin-pad are not dangerous.  It follows that any ball raised at a player (especially with a wild or uncontrolled stroke) to above half shin-pad height (approximately 30cms?) may, in any umpire’s judgement, be considered in a particular circumstance, for example,  from close range, to have been dangerous play.

A ball raised at a player at any height above knee height may be considered by an umpire to have been dangerously propelled – to have caused legitimate evasive action -even at 10m or 15m from the player endangered, in fact at any distance; there is no limiting distance given in the Rules of Hockey. This makes sense when it is realized that a ball with a velocity of 100 kph (not an unusual speed for a drag flick at the goal or a ball ‘accidentally’ hit across the goal in the circle) will travel approximately 27.78 meters in one second, and players are generally unable to respond effectively to the path of such a ball – once it has been located and is being tracked – in less than 0.5 secs. i.e. players may be unable to defend themselves.

So much for the Rules of Hockey, now to turn to ‘practice’.

This post was the opener for a thread on a hockey related website about the ‘gap’ between the written Rules, the Rule Guidance embedded in them, and Rule application.

UmpireHockey.com. The photos below from the USA v Belgium 11~12 consolation game in which #20 USA scores a goal, putting the ball past the shoulder of a Belgium player #5.

(Rule 9.8 and Rule 9.9 and the embedded Guidance with each – which I have posted above – were then set out).

I’ve always taken that to mean that if the ball is flicked, scooped, OR HIT towards an opponent within 5m it is considered dangerous.

Of course, I’ve also always considered that a player can’t always protect themselves from danger with legitimate evasive action—and that that is part of my job. In fact, I’ve always thought that legitimate evasive action was there so we wouldn’t turn into soccer/football having people trying to win Golden Globes and Academy Awards by faking that they were endangered.

And, finally, I’m predicting that we’ll have some (like this particular umpire has done) say that all things go with shots on goal. To which I say, we agree therefore that there is gap between what’s in the rule book, including the embedded guidance, and the briefing and what we understand to be the current practice. And, of course, what would the call have been if this had happened at the midfield line, consistency anyone?

Aren’t these gaps worth closing?

(I have replaced the photo stills with video – which was available on-line at the time of these posts, so available to be seen by the contributors, but could not be downloaded to the web-site at that time. The video also contains another goalmouth incident and decision by the same umpire, which is interesting in the context of the discussion)

http://s381.photobucket.com/user/Conundrum_2008/media/Conflictingdecisions_zpsca156fdd.mp4.html

The subsequent argument carried on over seven pages of posts. I have selected just two of the contributors, Nij and Keely, both of a view opposite to my own. I believe these two say in their posts (despite the evasions, gobbledygook and contradictions, which make it difficult to know just what it is they are suggesting is Rule) all that needs to be said to justify the abandonment of the subjective judgement of legitimate evasive action as a criteria for a dangerously played ball and the institution of objective criterion in its place.

Nij.

Deegum said: There has never, to my know/edge been anything in the rules to suggest that outfield players defending the goal are endangering themselves{unless they move Into the path of a shot

Except for the large number of times, surely, that others have told you why this is.

A person who chooses to stand in a place where they know the ball can be lifted into, without making any attempt to prevent themselves being hit, is placing themselves in danger. And to that, I would also add: what moron defender is trying to stop the shot directly? This is the goalkeeper’s job; the defender should be stopping the shot from being able to happen in the first place, not hoping to get a FHD from someone who doesn’t umpire the same way as 99% of all others (including at the highest levels).

Nij.

Deegum said: umpires adhering to ‘current practice’ in this area, may find themselves having failed in their duty of care to protect players from unnecessary and avoidable danger

[mod edit: unnecessary expletive deleted] ‘

The player who chooses to stand on that line, knowing the ball can and will be raised occasionally, is doing everything possible to create danger short of actively raising the ball at players themselves. No umpire regardless of their level, can prevent a player from being stupid before they act stupidly if the stupid player in question has made up their minds to do so already.

Neither I nor any other umpire who follows the current and F1H preferred interpretation can be blamed for what happens. You’re right that the danger is unnecessary and avoidable: you are entirely wrong on who is most responsible for allowing it to happen, and on who is most able to prevent it.

You say that attackers should learn to shoot at spaces or gaps. 1 say that defenders should learn how to bloody defend: you are there to tackle or intercept. Let your goalkeeper do their damn job and stop the shots, that’s why they are wearing pads, not you.

“but, Judge, It is current practice to allow this” would not, I’d guess, carry much weight in a US injury damages case .

A person who chooses to play a sport, e.g. field hockey knowing that there is a risk of injury does so of their own accord. Those who officiate the match cannot be blamed for it happening, when they have done what is reasonable, when the player has done something unreasonable.

Diligent likes this.

 Nij

Kilmory said: But is this ignoring the fact that the lilted shot, flick or scoop towards goal is allowed – unless it is dangerous?                                                                                                                              I would counter that the defender, standing in a set position, can reasonably expect the ball to be played to miss them. if they believed the rules as written they would know that the ball cannot be raised into them.

The ball is being raised into the goal. A defender should be quite able to stand outside the line of the goal, and use their stick to play at the ball

And finally,the person most able to prevent the danger is the person who has control of the ball.

Except they are not the only person able to prevent the danger.

If the defender tries to play an aerial past an attacker from a FHD, with the attacker jumping into the shot instead of standing low and using their stick to block it, then who has made it dangerous? The player raising the ball has every right to do so, where their opponent could have easily prevented any danger from occurring and played the ball.

The same applies to the shot at goal. The defender could have stood outside the line of the goal, and used their stick (at any height, I also note) to stop or deflect the ball. More, they could have instead allowed the goalkeeper to stand inside the line of the goal, and gone to make a tackle or intercept that prevents the attacker being able to shoot in the first place.

Basically, It comes down to what you believe the phrase ‘position themselves with the intention’ means. I would say it means moves into the path of a ball which has already been struck, YOU obviously feel It means standing still in a legitimate part of the pitch.

Position themselves with the intention of standing where they know the ball can and will be raised, whilst having other options (options which should make far more sense for any player who wants to both not get hurt and help defend the goal).

Knowing that they have a goalkeeper who can stand there and who has practised stopping shots; who is wearing a large amount of padding; which the defender themselves is certainly not. Knowing they could simply take a step or two to the left and still be able to play the ball (or, and is this such a contentious idea? Go and tackle the shooter, or stop them from shooting in the first place). Knowing that the ball can, and often will be raised into the goal.

They know all of that, and they have chosen to stand in the line of the goal. They have done everything they possibly could to make it dangerous to themselves, and neither I nor the majority of umpires will penalise the attacker for it.

I have heard it used even if the rule contradicts it (e.g. defender hit above knee from a PC inside 5m).

If a rule is being directly contradicted, by saying that a player within 5 metres hit above the knee by a (drag) flick at a PC and being told it’s a shot at goal so not dangerous, then that’s not an issue of the current practise being wrong by the rules, it’s a case of an umpire applying the wrong rules to a situation and making the wrong call.

Nij

Justin said: I hope that no-one is suggesting that, because no one was injured on the goal-line (in the the Ogs), that therefore there were no dangerous shots .

The definition says that if LEA is taken, then it’s dangerous …….and I’m sure we all saw players taking LEA on the goal-lines (I certainly did)

I would say that In fact. It’s not legitimate evasive action: to move yourself into the shot first, and then out of it again when you decide that “actually, I’d rather not be hit today..”. It might be dangerous in the non-rule-definition sense, but that’s caused by the defender standing somewhere silly, as carefully explained above.

Keely

UmpireHockey said: Hmm. I think we could charge the Olympian to be skilful enough to place the ball into a position that no one would consider dangerous. If she’s all that good to narrowly miss a player’s upper body/head, she should be just as skillful to play the ball down below the defender’s knees where there was even more open space into the goal. This shot caused the defender, who is allowed to take up any position on the field, to take legitimate evasive action from a shot that was taken from less than 2 meters away—let alone being less that 5 meters. I believe that’s how danger is defined in the book, right? So, why would the current practice differ? Why would there be a gap?

You want a shot that “no one would consider dangerous”? I’m telling you that no one at that level considers that example dangerous. The attacker has a GK on the ground who can possibly block a low shot, and a second defender reaching her stick out to block – that’s right – the low shot. In order to score, she must raise the ball high into a net that stands at 2.14m. She has only a narrow gap between the space taken by the defending player who cannot by the rules of the game use her body to stop the ball and the side post, and she aims for that gap- The defender may or may not have taken evasive action, but the key word is ‘legitimate’ – and at that level, it is not legitimate to stand blocking the net with one’s body and then duck and claim danger when the ball is put past you.

So that’s the big secret, 1 guess: the word legitimate.

It would not be legitimate to stack five field players across the goal, standing on the goal line, and then claim that any shot that is raised over knee height or hit at high velocity lower than that in an effort to score is dangerous. This would be the natural result of any objective codification of danger in the way that you are lobbying for.

Again, the gap is not within the rules, which are written with subjectivity in mind so that every level of the game can be umpired property and consistency within that level, but in what you believe should be called and what was actually called.

Justin said: It would be interesting to hear, from an international umpire, some examples of what the elite corps DOES regard as ‘dangerous play’, and preferably a definition

Just to say It Is a subjective judgement means that every umpire will have his/her own personal criteria regarding what they will or will not penalise. It also means that I’d be just as correct in blowing FHD for a player hit on the head, as someone else who’d give a PS …both subjectively deciding that it was or was not dangerous. Of course, the UM (with his own criteria) might not agree! Not an ideal recipe for consistency…we must surely be able to do better than that?

You’ve been far less than interested in hearing from me, Justin, and the example I already gave above so I guess you mean other international umpires (maybe males?). If I presented you with a definition, you’d say it’s not in the rule book so it can’t possibly be binding on anyone else.

Strangely enough, it seems that at the highest levels we still are very consistent, regardless of how little you think of the recipe.

UmpireHockey.com said: We say, “We’re a litigious society.” We are held to a higher standard, and we–in turn – have a higher expectation of items like written documents. The written documents in hockey are the rule book and the briefing, The FIRST place the lawyers are going to look is in the rule book. To defend yourself if the book won’t, we’d get to use the briefing, we would NOT get to use the ‘current practice’ . Uh, I mean we would use it but then …the laughing would begin.

I would encourage you and any other contributor who is NOT a lawyer to hesitate in expressing opinions on the pertinent legal principles and how potential litigation may or may not proceed.

Nij

deegum said:  Nij“when the player has done something unreasonable”

Such as standing in the most advantageous place to intercept the ball – in a manner that has been accepted for what ? 70 years? Without any relevant change of rule, it becomes an intent to commit an offence?

The goal-line is definitely not the most advantageous place to intercept the ball.

Unless you’re better at stopping a 100+ kmh shot which could be anywhere in a 7 square metre area using an object with perhaps one one-hundred-fiftieth that size, than placing your stick in front of a

stationary/slow-moving ball which is in a very specific place in such a way that has a much better chance of stopping the ball than not stopping it, then saying that the goalmouth is the best place to stop the shot from, is just plain absurd.

EDIT: ask any goalkeeper who knows what they’re doing, even, when somebody is going to get a free chance to shoot, unmarked coming into the circle, what’s the first thing you do? Cut down the angle.

You don’t stand back and let them bash it towards the goal, then hope you can react fast enough. You get your body and pads out in front of the ball and stop the shot from getting anywhere near the goal in the first place.

If the plan of somebody who can use anything they like, with much more protection and much greater blocking area, is to get right up in front of the shot, then why in any blazing hell would a defender think they’ve got a better chance of stopping it from on the line!?

Nij

UmpireHockey.com said: If a player on the goat-fine is in an illegitimate position then when they make an amazing stick save of a shot that would otherwise cross the goal-line, one could argue for the award of a penalty stroke because the player has illegally stopped the ball from crossing the goal-line.

I don’t know that I’ve seen such a well-crafted strawperson before. I’m sure that Burning Man Project might be interested in your technique.

It’s not an offence to stand on the line and play the ball legally. It is an offence to stand on the line and play the ball illegally.

Is this such a complicated thing to understand, without trying to make it sound anything like it isn’t?

Keely

Justin said: (following an analogy from base-ball posted by Keely)  OK, but what happens when the pitcher lets off a wild one (accidentally or not) which hits the batter, standing Quite legally where he should be?

Then the batter gets a free pass to first base (automatic walk) as a penalty. If he does it in a manner the umpire deems intentional, the pitcher gets thrown out of the game.

Justin said; I s’pose you’d say that would be like a DFer hitting a player standing OUTside the post? And, if the batter stood ON the plate he’d be ‘fair game’? although of course he wouldn’t…apart from the risk, he couldn’t hit a fair pitch from there-!

Exactly. Because unless you have privileges granted by the rules that allow you to use your body to block the ball and the necessary equipment to protect yourself against injury from fulfilling that designated role in the game, you shouldn’t be there. If you make that choice, it’s your risk. If you’re successful in legally saving the ball, great. But you also bear the flip side.

Justin said: But it seems crazy/illogical that just outside the post it’s regarded as dangerous, but just inside it’s allegedly legal to hit a defender!

Crazy or illogical to you and a tiny minority over-represented in FHF discussions, but completely expected and logical to me and the immense majority of hockey and sporting people. And this here is the real crux of the argument.

Nij

Deegum said: Could you tell me how a defender could reliably demonstrate their intention NOT to use their body as a back up- for I can assure you that many defenders do not so intend?

By not placing their body in the line of any shot which is going into the goal. This has been said so many times now, I do begin to think you’re deliberately ignoring the responses given to you and the explanations thereof.

Deegum said: Seems pretty stupid to me to use the body under the present ‘interpretation’ when a PS, i.e. a near certain goal, and a possibly injured star player, result.

Seems pretty stupid to me too, which is why I’ve described such players often as complete morons, but hey: that’s what they’re doing. They know what will happen as a result of their actions, and they do it anyway. Pretending otherwise would be just be silly. Unless you want to portray this as some kind of horrible monster attacker raising the ball at the innocent heroic defender story, of course, which would be naive at best.

They want the benefit of being able to stand there when they succeed in saving a goal with their stick, they’ll get the penalty applied for failing by preventing a goal with their body. They know this. The umpires know it. Everybody is on the same page in this situation, except for those lone stalwart Guardians Of The Old Way Of Doing Things.

Deegum said: So the meaning of English has changed?

Yes, it being a live language, which has words added or altered every single day as their common interpretation becomes different according to the way it is used and understood. Unlike for example Latin, which is unchanging and thus considered dead, in linguistic terminology.

Nij

Deegum said: Could you tell me how a defender could reliably demonstrate their intention NOT to use their body as a back up.

Funny, I could have sworn someone answered this.

By not placing their body in the line of any shot which is going into the goal.

*************************

So there we are, two umpires who are convinced that a defender has no business defending the goal on a line between a shooter and the goal, and if a defender does so position they do so with the intention of using the body to play the ball and should be penalised if hit with the ball,  irrespective of any evasive action, attempt to play the ball with their stick or any action of the shooter.  Moreover this is the view of anyone who is not a stupid moron and of the immense majority of hockey and sporting people – opinion but no reason offered, no definitions and nothing from the Rules of Hockey or (clutching at straws) even the Umpire Manager’s Briefing for Umpires.

.

Going back to the video.  http://s381.photobucket.com/user/Conundrum_2008/media/Conflictingdecisions_zpsca156fdd.mp4.html

.

It is clear that the ball is not hit at the defender but it is hit up and across her and the lean back she makes to ensure the ball does not hit her is I think justified. The shot is certainly intimidating (an offence) and wild/reckless (an offence) as it could just as easily have been hit into the goal at the near post and along the ground. It is certainly the sort of play that ought to be discouraged because it is potentially lethal. 

.

In the second half of the game the Belgium team attacking the same goal were awarded a penalty corner for dangerous play by the American goalkeeper. The ball deflected off the goalkeeper’s pads rising to about a meter beyond a Belgium attacker who was on her knees and reaching or diving to play at a cross-ball. The ball was less than a meter off the ground as it passed by the attacker; it was not propelled across her and it was not at her – yet the umpire penalised the goalkeeper.  If that deflection off the goalkeeper was dangerous play so was the shot made past the defender  in the first half.  So what is going on? Where is the consistency Keely referred to?

.

There is one clue. That umpire is the same one who announced to a Spanish defender, who was  hit on the thigh with a raised edge-hit while defending the goal in a match against China during the 2010 World Cup, that a shot made at the goal cannot be dangerous (which is an abandonment of the subjective judgement of shots – if they can’t be dangerous no judgement need be made).  But, to grasp at another straw, in the Rules concerning penalties we are given:

.

 13.3.l  for second and subsequent hits at the goal and for flicks, deflections and scoops, it is permitted to raise the ball to any height but this must not be dangerous. 

.

So a raised shot at the goal can be considered to be dangerous play when made during a penalty corner – otherwise there would be no need of the admonishment “but this must not be dangerous” – I don’t think it stretching the Rules of Hockey too much to suggest that a raised shot at goal made in open play can also be considered dangerous if an opponent is endangered by it.  The proponents of the idea that defenders are to blame if they are endangered when defending the goal offer as the crux of their argument only that there are a lot of people who think the same way they do (well they would say that wouldn’t they). 

.

This nonsense  goes back to an invention derived from the writing of a  FIH Technical Delegate,  John Gawley,  in an umpire coaching paper in 2001 (just after Keely began umpiring). He wrote that a field player defending the goal arrogated to himself the duties of a goalkeeper (but without the privileges of a goalkeeper) and could be shot at as if he were a fully equipped goalkeeper – unless that endangers him.  He also wrote, in the same document, that a shooter had to shoot at the goal and not at a defender positioned between the goal and himself. He began the document by stating that no player should ever raise the ball at another player be it at 15 cms of 50 cms and repeated that sentiment with conclusion that no player should EVER force another player to self-defence.

 Nij and Keely opt for an amended version of one extreme – that a field player between a shooter and the goal can be shot at as if a fully equipped goalkeeper – the unless that endangers him dropped from the statement – not quite pure invention, but a horrible distortion of what Gawley so naively wrote.  Gawley’s  publication remains the only umpire coaching document ever written about the lifted ball. A copy of it can be found in this article: –  http://wp.me/pKOEk-ki

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

.

Rules of Hockey. Deletion and Amendment

Rules of Hockey. Penalties. Free-Hit. Raised Hit.

A suggested deletion.

13.2.f

from a free hit awarded to the attack within the 23 metres area, the ball must not be played into the circle until it has travelled at least 5 metres or has been touched by a player of either team other than the player taking the free hit.

If the player taking the free hit continues to play the ball (ie no other player has yet played it) :
– that player may play the ball any number of times, but
– the ball must travel at least 5 metres, before
– that player plays the ball into the circle by hitting or pushing the ball again.

Alternatively :

– another player of either team who can legitimately play the ball must deflect, hit or push the ball before it enters the circle, or
– after this player has touched the ball, it can be played into the circle by any other player including the player who took the free hit.

This Rule clause ought to be withdrawn on the grounds that it is unnecessary and the conditions disadvantage the side awarded a free-ball in the opponent’s 23m area – the penalty free in the opposition’s 23m area is so restricted it is no longer a free-ball. The facility to immediately hit the ball directly into the circle from any free-ball awarded in the opponent’s 23m area should be restored

 There should instead be a prohibition on the raising of the ball into the opponent’s circle with a hit  or with a deflection of a hit – in any phase of play.

When a player hits the ball into the opponent’s circle, slight lifting of the ball, because of surface imperfections that cause it to ‘skip’, should be allowed for – the ball rising to no more than ball height – but the intention to hit the ball along the ground should be clear and a ball raised directly off the face of the stick-head should be considered a breach of Rule. 

This Rule therefore needs amending

9.9 Players must not intentionally raise the ball from a hit except for a shot at goal.

A raised hit must be judged explicitly on whether or not it is raised intentionally. It is not an offence to raise the ball unintentionally from a hit, including a free hit, anywhere on the field unless it is dangerous.

If the ball is raised over an opponent’s stick or body on the ground, even within the circle, it is permitted unless judged to be dangerous.

Raising the ball with a hit, intentionally or not,  should not be considered an offence

 Except:    

1) when it is judged to be dangerous play

( [a] if at a player within 5m and at above knee height [b] otherwise at the discretion of an umpire  )

A rider that, unless shooting at the goal in the opponent’s circle, hitting the ball to rise above waist height (accidentally or not) will always be considered dangerous play and subject to penalty, is probably necessary, to avoid the return of chip or clip hitting over long distances.                     

2)  when a player hits the ball  into the opposing circle  and

3) when a player hits the ball within the opposing circle but is  not taking a shot at the goal.

The first exception reflects what is already common practice. (From the Umpire Manager’s Briefing  ”forget lifted – think danger“) 

Note for the Mandatory Experiment Direct Lift.  Any free ball that is lifted directly with any permitted stroke (scoop, lob, flick etc.) should not be permitted to be raised to fall directly into the circle.

Terminology.  With the introduction of the Direct Lift  the term Free-Hit  is no longer just a misnomer but a contradiction. It needs to be replaced with the term Free-Ball or Free-Pass .

Consider: – The Free-Hit may be raised with any stroke except a hit.

.

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

Field Hockey. Rules of Hockey. The non-Rule

Field Hockey Rules. Lifted ball. Raised hit.
From the 2013 FIH Umpire Manager’s Briefing.  Ball off the Ground.

Blow only in dangerous situations everywhere on the pitch – forget lifted, think danger.

Which does not fit very well with Rule 9.9. from the Rules of Hockey.

Why do we have a published Umpire Managers Briefing that appears to conflict with the Rules of Hockey?

But from the Rules of Hockey this is no better as a means for deterring the raising of the ball in a dangerous way or in any other way.

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.

What does explicitly mean when used in this context ? I can’t make sense of it when it is linked with ‘judged’.

The word explicit means – clearly, unambiguously, without doubt.: explicitly is a derivative of explicit. Perhaps what is meant is  ’specifically’.

It’s obvious however that the FIH RC does not want the intentionally raised hit to be penalised unless the intention to lift the ball is clear beyond all possible doubt and, as it is next to impossible to be certain of an intention to raise the ball with a hit, especially if the hitter wants to disguises his/her intention,  it’s difficult to see why the Rule is there at all. The UMB gives the blunt – “forget lifted” , a tacit acknowledgement of the difficulty. 

I can’t see any good reason why it should not be permitted to raise the ball with a hit in open play outside the circle – as long as a dangerously played ball is carefully defined and dangerous play penalised. That is more-or-less what the UMB suggests, but that directive should be in the Rules of Hockey, not from outside of them.

Raising the ball into the circle with a hit and raising it across the goal within the circle with a hit, accidentally or not, could more sensibly be prohibited and better for the game than a general ban on intentional raising of the ball with a hit except when shooting at the goal.  

Even when shooting at the goal, hurling type play – lifting the ball and then hitting it – should be specifically banned (as it was at one time), and shooting on the volley should be without penalty only if the ball is directed downwards into the goal. The half-volley would I think have to remain a ‘dangerous’ judgement.

At present it is only when the ball is most likely to be raised in a dangerous way – while shooting at the goal from beyond 5m – that all control except the derisive “causes legitimate evasive action” is absent. Using ’causes LEA’ to define a dangerously played ball will never prevent a player playing the ball in a dangerous way because  ’dangerously’ is here an ‘after the fact’ judgement and the reactions of a defender to a shot are in any case beyond the control of a shooter. Forces self-defence is better but still insufficient – besides (absurdly)  ’forcing’ was deleted as a offence in 2011.

The control of the first hit shot at a penalty corner is effective because it is based entirely on an objective criteria. It’s probably too severe because a hit raised above 460mm will be penalised even if no one is endangered by it. But similar criteria with the addition of “at a player” or “towards a player” would be workable in areas outside of the circles. The judgement of intention is unnecessary - especially when there is a demonstrated determination not to ‘see’ such intent.

It is probably not fair to single out this Rule as the ‘non-Rule’, more than half of the seventeen Conduct of Play Rules are not applied at all or not applied as written. Obstruction  (ball shielding) is an obvious example, but I can’t recall any incident where a player has been penalised for dangerous use of the stick in normal play, or for intimidation or for making a dangerous shot towards the goal, or for using a forehand edge hit. A player receiving an aerial ball is never allowed to control it to ground before opponents close to within 5m. Most of these are  offences which require subjective judgement from an umpire and it seems that the most consistent way to deal with these offences is to ignore them. The exception is ball/body contact, which ironically ought, more often than not, be ignored.

That said, having objective criteria to work with to enforce a Rule isn’t a guarantee it will be enforced, as this post from a hockey player to hockey web-site shows.

I had this situation in a recent game. First corner the oppo has lined up to flick with an Adidas TT10 which I know to be an illegal stick. I’ve pointed this out to the umpire who seemed absolutely disinterested. I then pointed it out to his colleague who also just shrugged his shoulders. I’m afraid to say this really wound me up, they seemed totally unwilling to do anything. In my view its a rule no different to any other and therefore should be enforced.

This player obviously hasn’t noticed how many Rules are not enforced – and that is not because umpires are allowing advantage instead of penalising.
.

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

Field Hockey Rules: Questions on dangerous play.

Field Hockey Rules. Penalty Corner First Shot. Dangerous Play. Penalties.

An odd set of questions I found on a hockey web-site.

 

In the guidance to 13.3l it talks about if a defender is within 5m of the first shot at a PC and is hit below the knee its another PC and if above the knee its FHD.My question is whether that is really meant to cover the runner at the top of the circle – or does it apply to the first shot if it is less than 5m from goal.So I actually had the scenario on Saturday where a scrappy PC resulted in the first shot being a flick from about 4 yards out which hit a defender in his midriff. He was just off the line and so i am asking should that be FHD under the guidance or PS?Similarly had it hit him below the knee then a strict reading of the guidance would suggest its a PC and not a PS – which surely can’t be intended.

To take the opening statement and the questions one at a time.

In the guidance to 13.3l it talks about if a defender is within 5m of the first shot at a PC and is hit below the knee its another PC and if above the knee its FHD.

This is the Rule relating to the conduct of a penalty corner. Yes that is what is written in this Rule.
It was drafted in a ‘knee jerk’ response prior to the Athens Olympics,  to the tactics of the Koreans for the defence of the drag-flick shot at a penalty corner. At the time it was not legal for a field player to defend a shot on goal at above should height with the stick, so the Koreans tried to prevent an on target shot by blocking it with their bodies, running out in a group of three and sliding bodily into the ball and the path of the ball without attempting to use their sticks at all. It was a stupid and reckless tactic and players were injured but it worked sometimes.

.

 I call the  Rule Guidance created in response to this defensive tactic  ’knee-jerk’ because it was unnecessary and because the consequences of it were not thought through.
It was unnecessary because the umpires involved in officiating the games where the tactic was first employed should have dealt with it with the award of a penalty stroke and yellow cards – and that would have been the end of it.

.

 One consequences of the new Guidance was to label all defending players running from the goal towards the ball at the top of the circle  ’Suicide runners” – a term which was used to justify the notion that a player hit with a raised ball was entirely to blame for being hit with a deliberately raised shot. Another, was to plant the idea that running from inside the goal towards the ball, and possibly along the line a shot at the goal could be made, was an offence. I heard that view given in television commentary by an International player during the 2010 World Cup.  The combination of those two inventions has since ‘evolved’, without any input at all from the HRB / FIH Rules Committee, to the notion  that an on target shot at the goal cannot be dangerous play – but the Guidance that a first shot at a penalty corner that hits a defender above the knee must result in the shooter being penalised for dangerous play causes some difficulty with that idea – so the question now arises (above) : is that Guidance only to do with an out-runner who is within 5m of the ball ?

.

By not specifying that the new Guidance is about an out-runner being struck with the ball  (and how precisely would that be done, if there had been any movement from the player hit off the goal-line and towards the ball?) and mandating the award of a penalty corner if a defender is hit below the knee with a first shot at a penalty corner, the FIH Rules Committee (at the time the HRB) have excluded the possibility of the award of a penalty stroke.

.

 That said, the removal of the gains benefit exception clause taken together with the fact that an unintentional ball/body contact is not an offence – even if it is a breach of Rule (Guidance Rule 9.11 and Penalties Advantage), would make the award of a penalty stroke incorrect, no matter which player was hit an out-runner or a ‘post-man’, unless the body/ball contact was clearly intentional on the part of the defender. This may not be the intended result of the deleting of one Rule Guidance and the alteration of another but it is the logical consequence of it.

.

Any playing of the ball into the body of a defender at above knee height and from within 5m is dangerous play, period, which answers this question.

where a scrappy PC resulted in the first shot being a flick from about 4 yards out which hit a defender in his midriff. He was just off the line and so i am asking should that be FHD under the guidance or PS?.  There should be no possibility that this action by a shooter should result in the award penalty stroke – but incredibly it usually does or almost as bad, play is allowed to continue if that is of adavantage to the attacking side – the team that offended.

.

Now this:-
Similarly had it hit him (a player just off the goal-line) below the knee then a strict reading of the guidance would suggest its a PC and not a PS – which surely can’t be intended.

If what is currently written in the rule book is followed a defender who is hit with the ball without intending to be so hit has committed no offence (an action that may be penalised by an umpire).  But since 2004 according to what is written under Penalties.  Advantage in the Rules of Hockey :-
12.1 Advantage : a penalty is awarded only when a player or team has been disadvantaged by an opponent breaking the Rules.

If awarding a penalty is not an advantage to the team  which did not break the Rules, play must continue.
penalty may therefore follow a breaking of the Rules; but why then point out in the Guidance to Rule 9.11. that a ball/body contact is only an offence if it is made voluntarily, if that has no bearing on whether or not an umpire should penalise an accidental or forced contact? This really must be sorted out, umpires should not have to choose which of several apparently conflicting sets of Guidance to follow from Conduct of Play, Penalties Penalty Corner  and Penalties Advantage.  Some ‘solve’ the problem by always penalising the player hit, very few even consider penalising the player who most probably caused the ball/body contact – the player who propelled the raised ball.  A start could be made by declaring that, subject to dangerous, intimidating or reckless play on the part of a shooter, any contact with the ball by a defending field player which is made below the knee and directly prevents the ball crossing the goal-line should be penalised with a penalty stroke. That action has been penalised in that way for decades – let us have it in writing.  It was considered possible to mandate a penalty corner for a no fault contact with the ball at below knee height,  it is certainly possible to mandate a penalty stroke for a similar contact that prevents the ball entering the goal – provided of course there has not been a prior offence by opponents.  The real problem is that even close range shots (less than 5m) that have forced evasive action or hit a defender in front of the goal and which have been raised to considerably above knee height, have also resulted in the award of a penalty stroke – and that should not happen. Shots made from within 5m and which are raised to above knee height and hit a defender should remain, as now, dangerous play offences, unless the player hit clearly intentionally moves to play the ball with the body while making no attempt to play it with the stick .  The absurd tag ‘Suicide runner’ must not continue to be used to describe an out-runner at a penalty corner and the mandatory award of a penalty corner, if an out running  player is hit below the knee from within 5m with a first shot at a penalty corner, should be deleted,  not least because it is in conflict with the Guidance to Rule 9.11. but also as has been pointed out in the original question, it is vague.  Unless such ball/body contact is intentional on the part of the defender,  if at a penalty corner a  defender  is hit below the knee with the ball  play should continue (provided there is no injury to the defender)  unless a certain goal has thereby  been directly prevented.  In other circumstances (a goal is not prevented) if there is injury to the defender and the shooter is not at fault, the incident could be treated as a no fault stoppage (bully) or the alternative  I have suggested in another article         http://wp.me/pKOEk-Kd            may  be appropriate.   Naturally the peculiar  notion that an on target shot at the goal cannot be dangerous play needs to be firmly squashed. That could convincingly be done by providing objective criterion for a dangerously played ball from beyond 5m of an opponent. It is absurd that the first hit shot at the goal at a penalty corner, even when made from considerably more than 5m,  is (correctly) strictly limited, but there is presently no height limit at all on a drag flick made from beyond 5m of an opponent, even if it is propelled (even intentionally) directly at an opponent. Elbow height  (120 cms) seems to be both easily identifiable and reasonable and could be used for all shots at the goal including those made in open play and indeed for all raising of the ball towards an opponent more than 5m away.

I suggest that a ball propelled at a velocity that could injure and within the black line shown in the illustration of a body be considered dangerous. The red line indicates an area where a rising ball will be dangerous to a player at almost any velocity.

There could also of course be a change made to the size of the goal.            http://wp.me/pKOEk-LX                  but that is not an immediate or even a short-term solution to the dangerous shot at the goal or relevant to the dangerous raising of the ball at an opponent in open play.

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

Field Hocky Rules. Cannot Be or Must Not Be Dangerous?

Field Hockey Rules. Dangerously played ball. Shot at goal.

Read through all the Rules of Hockey have to say about propelling the ball in a dangerous way and decide if a shot at the goal  (a) in open play (b) during a penalty corner, cannot be dangerous play or must not be made in a dangerous way i.e. must not be dangerous play.

9.8 Players must not play the ball dangerously or in a way which leads to dangerous play.

A ball is considered dangerous when it causes legitimate evasive action by players.

The penalty is awarded where the action causing the danger took place.

9.9 Players must not intentionally raise the ball from a hit except for a shot at goal.

A raised hit must be judged explicitly on whether or not it is raised intentionally. It is not an offence to raise the ball unintentionally from a hit, including a free hit, anywhere on the field unless it is dangerous.

If the ball is raised over an opponent’s stick or body on the ground, even within the circle, it is permitted unless judged to be dangerous.

Players are permitted to raise the ball with a flick or scoop provided it is not dangerous.

A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous.

If an opponent is clearly running into the shot or into the attacker without attempting to play the ball with their stick, they should be penalised for dangerous play.

Penalties.

Procedure for the taking of a penalty corner.

13.3. k. if the first shot at goal is a hit (as opposed to a push, flick or scoop), the ball must cross the goal-line, or be on a path which would have resulted in it crossing the goal-line, at a height of not more than 460 mm (the height of the backboard) before any deflection, for a goal to be scored.

The requirements of this Rule apply even if the ball touches the stick or body of a defender before the first shot at goal.

If the first shot at goal is a hit and the ball is, or will be, too high crossing the goal-line it must be penalised even if the ball is subsequently deflected off the stick or body of another player. 

The ball may be higher than 460 mm during its flight before it crosses the goal-line provided there is no danger and provided it would drop of its own accord below 460 mm before crossing the line.

‘Slap’ hitting the ball, which involves a long pushing or sweeping movement with the stick before making contact with the ball, is regarded as a hit.

13.3. l. for second and subsequent hits at the goal and for flicks, deflections and scoops, it is permitted to raise the ball to any height but this must not be dangerous.

A defender who is clearly running into the shot or into the taker without attempting to play the ball with their stick must be penalised for dangerous play.

Otherwise, if a defender is within five metres of the first shot at goal during the taking of a penalty corner and is struck by the ball below the knee, another penalty corner must be awarded or is struck on or above the knee in a normal stance, the shot is judged to be dangerous and a free hit must be awarded to the defending team.

It is strange that in an open play situation the only Guidance there is concerning a shot hit at the goal, even a raised shot,  is:- 

A ball is considered dangerous when it causes legitimate evasive action by players.

There is no objective criteria whatsoever – nothing at all concerning the distance from an opponent the ball is hit or the height of the shot or the velocity of the ball (which is germane to the propensity of the ball to cause injury and to the legitimacy of evasive action).

There is no mention of any of these criterion in the advice to umpires given in the Umpire Managers Briefing to Umpires either, except to state :-

A forehand hard hit using the edge of the stick is not allowed and should be penalised even for a shot at goal.

Low balls over defenders sticks in a controlled manner that hit half shin pad are not dangerous. (which is most likely about a flicked ball)

Watch the ball on the way up – the ball must not be flicked dangerously towards an opposing player (from Aerial balls)

Be aware of attempts to gain free hits by the ball carrier, for example, by playing the ball dangerously into a defender’s body.

Penalty Corner.

Position of disengaged umpire should allow support of colleague on the height and direction of the shot, the possibility of suicide runners and possible obstruction of runners.

(the term ‘suicide runners’ – which should not be in the UMB at all in my opinion – refers only to a defending player who clearly intentionally plays the ball with the body and makes no attempt to play it with the stick)

When the ball is missing the goal and the defender is hit high on the body, decision is a free hit to the defence.  (Only when the ball is missing the goal?)

What is carefully avoided in both the Rules of Hockey and the UMB is any reference to the decision that should be made when  a defending player cannot take evasive action when the ball is propelled high and a defending player  is hit with the ball  - when (a) the ball is propelled from beyond 5m of the defender and (b) is not going wide of the goal – is ‘on target’. The reasons given for the award of a penalty stroke do not assist here.

12.4 A penalty stroke is awarded :

a)  for an offence by a defender in the circle which prevents the probable scoring of a goal.

b)  for an intentional offence in the circle by a defender against an opponent who has possession of the ball or an opportunity to play the ball.

It is obviously not an offence to be hit with a ball that has been propelled – at the player hit –  in a dangerous way.

It is not an offence to make an involuntary (unintentional or accidental) ball-body contact. (Guidance to Rule 9.11 

It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player. The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball or if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way.) The word always has been in this Guidance since before the ‘gains benefit’ exception was removed from the Rules of Hockey and is now redundant- there now being no reason to penalise an unintentional ball/body contact.

The possibility of an offence being ‘created’ by a benefit gained from a ball/body contact (which was obviously only possible in the absence of dangerous play by the shooting player) was removed when the gains benefit exception clause was withdrawn – there is now no exception to the embedded Rule Guidance.

Conclusion?

My conclusion is that this :- for second and subsequent hits at the goal and for flicks, deflections and scoops, it is permitted to raise the ball to any height but this must not be dangerous. from the penalty corner Rules describes play which is indistinguishable from open play (especially now that off-side no longer exists – this Rule clause has been in the Rules of Hockey since long before the withdrawal of the Off-side Rule and the circle is now no more crowded in the penalty corner situation than it is generally in open play), therefore the conditions within it ought to be applied to open play, especially in the absence of any reference within the Rules of Hockey to dangerous play and the raised hit in the circle in open play when there is supposedly “an emphasis on safety” demanded by the FIH.

(this Rule would be ‘adopted’ in the same way as the  ’within 5m and above knee height‘ criterion from the penalty corner Guidance is generally used in open play situations to describe a dangerously played ball – and the Guidance from Rule 9.9.  - which refers only to flicks and scoops and does not provide a height limit – would  not be (is not)  when the ball is raised but not as high as knee height. Technically, according to the Guidance provided in Rule 9.9 any raising of the ball at an opponent within 5m with a flick or a scoop – and therefore presumably with a hit also – is a dangerous play offence).

It is reasonable to state:-  that in open play shots at the goal, including hits, flicks, scoops and deflections should be permitted to be of any height but must not be dangerous.

 The statement that a shot at the goal must not be made in a dangerous way (made in Rule 13.3.l) means that it is a possibility that an ‘on target’ shot at goal could be made in a way that is considered to be  dangerous play and penalised as an offence. The assumption is therefore made that if a hit flick or a scoop above knee height can be considered dangerous when used to make a second or subsequent  shot at goal in the penalty corner situation, such shots can also reasonably be be deemed to be dangerous in open play.

We have however no idea what an umpire might consider to be a dangerously played ball when it is propelled at an opponent who is more than 5m from the ball. This is still an entirely subjective decision based on legitimate evasive action, but we don’t know what legitimate evasive action is either: this again is an entirely subjective judgement by an umpire – no objective criteria is recommended by the FIH RC for the judgement of it by an umpire.

Here are a couple of examples of such judgement. In both the opposing player was within 5m of the raised shot.

This in open play during a high level match,

This the first shot at goal during a penalty corner in a low level club game.

Not ‘one off’ isolated incidents of ‘brain fade’, unless such ‘brain fade’ is a lot more common that is generally supposed, there are many more such examples on video and  these umpires are following instruction from somewhere or think they are doing so.

Who briefed this commentator ? (This clip from 2008 when a free ball could be hit directly into the circle from just outside the circle line)

.

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

Field Hockey: Confusion of Rules

Field Hockey: Dangerous play; Rules of Hockey.

Edited 18.1.13

I find it very counterproductive when people keep bringing up the “shot striking a defender closer than 5 meter above the knee is dangerous” rule, as this ONLY applies to (otherwise legitimately) raised balls on the goal at a PC. this does not apply in other situations.

what is true, however, is that danger depends on the skill level of those involved.

The above are comments posted by an umpire on an Internet hockey forum thread about the raising of the ball high at another player in the outfield – specifically the scooping of the ball at or very close to an opponent who is closing on the player in possession. The initial poster had, rightly, made the observation that the introduction of the facility to directly lift the ball from a free should have reduced or eliminated such incidents (because an opponent could not encroach within 5m before a scoop was made from a free ball). It was pointed out however that there is nothing to prohibit a self-pass being followed immediately with a scoop pass and scoops are also made in open play.

This umpire’s  comments are however misguided and misguidance. It is true that the first hit shot at the goal at a penalty corner cannot be scored from if raised above knee height (460mm), and if a raised shot, however made, hits a defender who is within 5m of the ball, above knee height then a free ball will be (or should be) awarded to the defending team (in fact a free should be awarded to the defence if an out-runner evades a shot raised above 460mm to avoid being hit with the ball) and, conversely, a player hit below the knee with a first shot at the goal will be penalised with the award of another penalty corner.  But, according to the provided Rule Guidance (Rule 9.9), if, in open play, a ball is raised to any height towards an opponent who is within 5m that is considered dangerous play.

These are the two Rules concerning dangerous playing of the ball ( I will leave aside here consideration of  the falling aerial pass).

Rule 9.8. Players must not play the ball dangerously or in a way which leads to dangerous play.
A ball is considered dangerous when it causes legitimate evasive action by players.

Which (oddly) says nothing about either height or distance or about velocity in relation to a dangerously played ball (there is no cut-off distance beyond which dangerous playing of the ball at an opponent is not a possibility i.e. legitimate evasive action is not distance limited)

and

The Guidance embedded with Rule 9.9, (a Rule which concerns the intentional raising of the ball with a hit).

Rule 9.9 Players must not intentionally raise the ball from a hit except for a shot at goal.

A raised hit must be judged explicitly on whether or not it is raised intentionally. It is not an offence to raise the ball unintentionally from a hit, including a free hit, anywhere on the fi eld unless it is dangerous.

If the ball is raised over an opponent’s stick or body on the ground, even within the circle, it is permitted unless judged to be dangerous.

Players are permitted to raise the ball with a flick or scoop provided it is not dangerous. A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous.    (my underlining. This ‘remnant’ is all that is left of the Rule:- A player shall not raise the ball at another player., which was in the rule book until the ‘simplification and clarification’ of the Rules in 2004 )

If an opponent is clearly running into the shot or into the attacker without attempting to play the ball with their stick, they should be penalised for dangerous play. (my bold and underling. This conflicting clause was added to the Rules of Hockey before the Athens Olympics following the tactics of the Korean team in a previous Tournament when defending a penalty corner. It has ‘expanded’ to the point where no ‘on target’ shot at the goal is considered dangerous and closing down on a shooter from within the goal at a penalty corner is seen – ‘interpreted’ -as an offence,  irrespective or an attempt to use the stick to intercept the ball. The concept has been encapsulated in the jargon ‘Suicide runner’ – which removes the need to explain any ‘offence’. )

Why direction to players and umpires concerning a flick or scoop towards an opponent should be given in a Rule about the intentional raising of the ball with a hit is a mystery. What should be noticed however is that there is no reference to the height of the ball in this Rule Guidance – In Rule 9.8 the embedded Guidance refers to a subjective judgement, the legitimacy of evasive action, in Rule 9.9.the embedded Guidance refers to objective criteria, 1) raised ball 2) towards an opponent who is 3) within 5m

The knee height allowance for a shot towards a player in the penalty corner situation is actually greater than should be generally allowed in open play incidents. (The UMB advises umpires that a ball “below half-shin pad height” is not dangerous; it must be taken from that advice that a ball which is above half-shin pad height – i.e. 25cms – 30cms and towards another player within 5m is to be considered dangerous or may be considered dangerous). The comment in the first paragraph above says nothing either way, only that the Rules concerning the penalty corner (sic first hit shot at goal) do not apply in other situations, but the inference seems to be that ‘knee height’ applies only in the penalty corner situation and there is otherwise no height restriction on a ball propelled towards another player i.e. the matter of danger is entirely a matter of umpire judgement (of legitimate evasive action) alone.

In fact the opposite is nearer the truth, the Rule Guidance about a dangerously played ball is more severe in open play than it is in relation to the first hit shot at a penalty corner – not less so – any lifting of the ball towards a close opponent is considered dangerous play. It is as likely that ball velocity will be a consideration as it is that ball height may be in judging the legitimacy of any evasive action taken, but nowhere is ball velocity mentioned in the Rules (except perhaps that a forehand edge hit may not be ‘hard’ or a goalkeeper may not propel a ball ‘forcefully’ with a hand protector).

It is strange that the Guidance to Rule 9.8. – on legitimate evasive action – is noted ( even if  generally ignored) but participants seem to be unaware of the Guidance to Rule 9.9. concerning the flicking or scooping a ball towards another player who is within 5m of the ball (it is even stranger that in a Rule that is about the raising of the ball with a hit and in which dangerous play is described  the raising the ball with a hit at an opponent is not mentioned. Perhaps it is assumed, by common sense, that a raised hit at a close player will be considered dangerous play, because a flick towards a close opponent is so considered ?)

There are a few other oddities arising from the Guidance to Rule 9.9. Take this for example:-

It is not an offence to raise the ball unintentionally from a hit, including a free hit, anywhere on the field unless it is dangerous.

and note the similarity to this (from Rule 9.11 – the ball/body contact Rule) :-

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

then consider the difference in the way the Guidance about an unintentionally raised hit – and even a deliberately raised hit, that is not a shot at the goal, is applied, compared with the way Guidance concerning  unintentional ball/body contacts is applied.

Then there is this Rule Guidance:-

If an opponent is clearly running into the shot or into the attacker without attempting to play the ball with their stick, they should be penalised for dangerous play. it is the only Guidance repeated in the Rules of Hockey, it also appears in the Rules concerning the penalty corner. Like the Guidance to the ball/body contact Rule (where intent is overlooked), a vital part of it is generally ignored i.e. -   without attempting to play the ball with their stick. There is no Rule or Guidance that states that a player cannot close on an opponent in possession of the ball from anywhere on the pitch (including directly from within the goal during a penalty corner). The Rule Guidance is aimed specifically at players who deliberately use their bodies to intercept the ball, not at players who attempt to play the ball with the stick, but this Guidance is so badly applied that a myth that it is an offence to run from the center of the goal towards a shooter in possession of the ball has become deeply entrenched in the ‘mindset’ of not only players but many umpires too.

The second comment

what is true, however, is that danger depends on the skill level of those involved.

It is NOT true that danger depends on the skill level of those involved. People have come to accept such nonsense without thinking about what the statement means, in the same way that they accept that 2+2 =4,  it is simply learned or accepted without reflection. Close examination of danger depends on the skill level of those involved  in the context of a principal of Rule application, reveals that the statement must be a fallacy because it states in effect that skilled players cannot ever be endangered by any ball that is propelled at them. Responsibility for causing endangerment is also taken from the player propelling the ball and laid on the player the ball is propelled at – not at all what the Rules of Hockey require.

What is true is that experienced and alert defenders may be able to avoid or even play with the stick, balls that have been played at them in a way that endangers them, i.e. forces self-defence to avoid injury  – and it is also true that a necessary act of evasion is supposed to define a dangerously played ball. What is being asserted is that skilled players do not need in any circumstances to evade a ball that is propelled at them or if they do evade the ball then the ball could not have been propelled in a dangerous way. That is obviously a nonsense as it is an inversion of the definition of a dangerously played ball and  there are also plenty of examples of highly skilled players being injured with the ball they have been unable to evade or to play. But, if legitimate evasive action is to be removed as as a valid criteria for dangerous play, which is what the ‘skill level’ statement implies, something has to be put in its place when a ball is raised at high velocity at another player -  from both within and beyond beyond 5m of that player. The alternative is to declare that players cannot be endangered by a ball propelled towards them from beyond 5m (which is close to the current attitude) and also to go along with the idea that skillful players cannot be endangered in any circumstances. In the circumstances being commented upon (a player closing on another who flicks or scoops the ball towards the closing player) the Guidance embedded in Rule 9.9 should be a sufficient safeguard, but it cannot be if it is ignored.

A ball that is propelled at high velocity high into the body (or at the head) of any player, no matter how skilled that player may be, will endanger that player (put her or him at risk of injury). That the player so endangered has the skill or the luck to avoid injury does not make the play of the player who propelled the ball ‘non-dangerous’. That skilled players cannot be endangered by a ball raised at them is part of the same flawed ‘logic’ that declares that a shot at the goal cannot be dangerous play and  obviously makes no sense.

Such nonsense – if accepted – is counter productive in that it prevents a clear understanding and application of Rules, but then so too is the confusing way in which Rules concerning dangerous play are set out in the Rules of Hockey: the present confusing statements do not produce a clear understanding of what is written or of the intent of the Rule.

There is a reliance on the ‘common sense’ (‘interpretation’ and subjective judgement) of umpires, but there is no more evidence that umpires have a common sense of what is dangerous play (or even that they are aware of A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous.) or that they will apply their ‘common sense’, than there is that players will play responsibly and with regard for the safety of other players. There are many who say that the above mentioned concepts of dangerous play are outdated or outmoded and that we should “move on”, but this Rule Guidance is in the current (2013-15) Rules of Hockey, and it is never made clear by the people who advocate ‘moving on’ what it is we should ‘move on’ to. They are unable to or won’t put a description of what they want – and are applying –  in writing,  if players are to remain responsible, as they must be, for actions they take that endanger other players the requirements need to be clearly explained.

For the moment I would rather that a ball raised to knee height or above and at a player within 5m of the ball at the time it was raised, should be considered dangerous, than rely on the notion that danger depends of the skill level of the players involved and  that there is no limit on the ball raised at an opponent in open play – especially as the skill seems to be demanded only from the player the ball is raised at, not from the player propelling the ball.

The interpretation of A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous cannot be that a ball raised at a close opponent cannot be dangerous or that “dangerous” or “endangered” depends on skill levels. It is certainly true that the Rule Guidance embedded in Rule 9.9.  is so severe, especially as neither height or velocity are mentioned, that  most umpires will refuse to enforce it – hence the advice from the UMB that a ball below half-shin pad height is not dangerous (no distance or velocity mentioned)  – but to deduce from this advice that there is no height criteria at all in the judgement of ‘dangerous’ outside the penalty corner demonstrates a lack of both knowledge and of common sense – it is a leap from one extreme to another – not sensible at all.

The need for the introduction of clear height criterion for use in the judgement of the raised ball, be it from within 5m of an opponent or from beyond 5m of an opponent, coupled with advice concerning velocity and the propensity of the ball to cause injury or force self-defence if it is propelled at another player, is obvious. This has been stated many times;  such a statement was contained in the first sentence of Umpire Coaching document on the raised ball produced in 2001 by John Gawley (then a Level 3 Umpire Coach). The revised document (2005), despite what is given in the UBM, contains exactly the same advice.

No player should ever be put into a position of self-defence against a ball put into the air at any height, be it 15 or 50 centimeters.

The present conflicts are clear, what is to be done to resolve them is not – at the moment it looks as if that will be nothing at all.

.

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

 

Field Hockey Rules: Frighteningly Bizarre

Frighteningly bizarre conduct from Internet field hockey forum moderators, they scold forum contributors for daring to question their judgement on a Rules matter and call their opinions “frighteningly bizarre”, when in fact it is the moderators who are wrong.

The issue was whether or not a ball raised at a goalkeeper’s head could or should be considered dangerous play. The true answer, as usual, begins “It depends…” and is “Yes”or “No” or “Maybe”.

For the purposes of the Rules concerning a dangerously played ball, a goalkeeper is not distinguished in any way from either “a defender” or “an opponent”, so logically (but perhaps not reasonably) any ‘dangerously at’ Rule which applies to field-players also applies to goalkeepers.

Should anyone think that bizarre they should take the matter up with the FIH Rules Committee (before the issue of the next rulebook in 2015) so any suggested change in the status of a goalkeeper vis-á-vis the dangerously played ball can be considered and an FIH RC and FIH Executice approved amendment made to the Rules of Hockey. Otherwise it’s conceivable that umpires might apply their own interpretations or be ‘advised’ in a UMB to treat goalkeepers differently.

Okay, that last sentence  is ‘tongue-in-cheek’, goalkeepers are obviously better protected by the equipment they are required/permitted to wear than  field-players are and don’t play in the same way – they deliberately put their body in the way of the ball and are permitted to do so – and there should be different Rules for goalkeepers in respect to the dangerously played ball in such circumstances.  But does that mean they cannot be endangered and excuse reckless play by attacking players? No and no and nor does it mean that Umpire Managers et al. can invent such Rules or coach as if they already exist.What it means is that the Rule anomaly should be addressed.

A ball can break a face grid or dent a helmet if propelled hard enough (which may mean at the very least the goalkeeper cannot continue as a fully equipped goalkeeper if there is no replacement helmet) and there is no good reason anyway why an attacker should be propelling the ball at high velocity from less than 5m at the head of a goalkeeper, even if the goalkeeper is wearing a helmet.  The ‘bottom line’, the ‘clincher’ in answer to the question asked, is that propelling the ball at above knee height at a player from within 5m of that player is currently a dangerous play offence even if ‘in practice’ such an offence is not penalised if the player is  a fully equipped goalkeeper and the the goalkeeper is up-right (be it standing, kneeling or sitting) and facing the striker.

When ‘practice’ does not follow Rule, umpires not only put players at risk, they also put themselves at a different kind of risk. It is not in the least bizarre to question ‘practice’ or to wonder why, in regard to the dangerously played ball here are not special Rules for goalkeepers, or to ask where the ‘lines’ concerning the endangerment of a goalkeeper are ‘drawn’. A real danger is that players other than the goalkeeper will be injured by deflections or rebounds when high close-range shots are made at goalkeeper or that shooters will take the same attitude to shooting at defending field-players as they currently do when shooting towards a fully equipped goalkeeper (which is the case).

I understand that in the USA at some levels of play, propelling a ball at above shoulder height at a goalkeeper i.e. at the head,  is penalised as an offence. Once again a sports authority outside the FIH has shown the way. The FIH Rules Committee would do well to at least consider if the lead given fits with  their declared ‘Emphasis on safety’, because current umpiring ‘practice ‘ in this area certainly does not. But umpires are declaring that they are “doing what ‘the FIH’ want”. (By “the FIH” they seem to mean what they themselves want and many of them have no hesitation in declaring themselves to be authoritative in matters of Rule and to try to ‘yellow card’ or ‘red card’ dissenting opinion, as if in charge of a match on a pitch, when engaged in what should be a discussion on a forum).

Take as an example of difference of opinion, a declaration made by one contributor concerning the fully equipped goalkeeper, to the effect that an umpire should behave towards a goalkeeper with regard to the dangerously played ball as if a goalkeeper was wearing all the protective equipment he or she was permitted to wear (and of the best quality?). I would take the opposite view. I think umpires should umpire as if goalkeepers in general were wearing only the minimum protective equipment required as listed in the Rules of Hockey to be considered ‘fully equipped’, which is helmet, leg-guards, gloves and kickers, because there is the possibility that this is what a ‘fully equipped’ goalkeeper will be wearing.

The goalkeeper is not ‘at fault’ for wearing only the minimum protection required, but an umpire may be at fault for umpiring as if a goalkeeper (or all goalkeepers) were completely protected from all possible ball impact. The Rules in regard to ‘fully equipped’ are obviously outdated, but it needs to be borne in mind that the Rules of Hockey are issued for all players and officials, at all levels, and not every goalkeeper is going to have the maximum possible protection. This is possibly a matter for Rule Variation at International level and (with permission) League Rules at other levels, but no matter how well protected a goalkeeper may be, that does not negate existing Rules or allow recklessly dangerous propelling of the ball at any player, including a goalkeeper.

Beyond the certainty of ‘within 5m’ any ball raised at another player is dangerous only if the on-pitch umpire at the time considers it to be so, because ‘legitimate evasive action’ is a subjective judgement. The ‘judgement’ made will depend on what the umpire has been instructed or coached to do in such circumstances and here we move into an area that really is frighteningly bizarre.

2008 Olympics.

2010 World Cup.

What could be more frightening or bizarre than for umpires to give attackers the idea that an ‘on target’ shot at the goal is not, and cannot in any circumstances, be considered dangerous play, or treating all defenders in front of the goal in the circle as if they were fully equipped goalkeepers AND as if there is a different dangerously played ball Rule for fully equipped goalkeepers, but not describing that Rule – that  is more than just bizarre.

(Add to that bizarre Rule Guidance from the Rules of Hockey that a shot, if going wide of the goal, may be considered dangerous play if it hits a defender – and if a defender attempts to play an above should shot, that is going wide of the goal,with his stick, a penalty corner will be awarded) ,

Who would not question such ‘logic’ from both ‘umpiring practice’ and from the FIH Rules Committee?

Well forum moderators obviously, who coincidentally, happen to be umpires and of the kind who won’t tolerate any criticism of their view.

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

Field Hockey Rules: ‘Updated’ – Shades of Orwell’s ’1984′

Revised 26th January 2013.

I wrote an article some time ago about a field hockey Umpire Coaching paper entitled The Lifted Ball , written in 2001 by John Gawley (then a FIH Level 3 Umpire Coach). I described it as the most conflicted document I had read about a Rule of Hockey. The Rule concerns the dangerously played (raised) ball.       http://martinzigzag.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/contradictions-and-conflicts/

This paper is however still the only one to have been written on the subject by an FIH Umpire Coach at any level and the only contribution to the information concerning a dangerously raised ball provided by the Umpire Manager’s Briefing (for use in FIH Tournaments but considered to be generally useful)  is this: -

Ball off the Ground 

Blow only in dangerous situations everywhere on the pitch - forget lifted, think danger

 Low balls over defenders sticks in a controlled manner that hit half shin pad are not dangerous

Which is of very little use to anyone who requires a description of what might be considered dangerous play. The FIH Umpire Coaching Videos are also devoid of any instruction in this area.

Those familiar with hockey will be aware of the conflicted manner in which the Rule is applied (or not applied) in practice. Many new to hockey watching the game today would have no idea that there was such a thing as a dangerously propelled ball: we now have umpires forcefully declaring that an on target shot at the goal cannot be dangerous play (I first heard this said in televised commentary during the 2008 Olympics. It was repeated by an umpire to a player at the 2010 World Cup, but nothing to this effect has been published by the FIH ).  There is an obvious need for a clearly written Rule that is based on objective criteria, rather than almost entirely on the judgement of ‘legitimate evasive action’ – which is  ’in practice’ ignored (such judgement is not entirely based on LEA only because raising the ball at an opponent who is within 5m is prohibited – but this too is often ignored).

In 2005 an ‘updated’ version of the 2001 paper, entitled The Raised Ball and Danger was published, It is reproduced in full at the end of this article. Unfortunately the ‘update’ is in fact nothing of the sort.

The facility for a defender to play at an on target shot at the the goal at above shoulder height was introduced as a Mandatory Experiment in 2003 and it is beyond belief that Gawley while updating his own paper in 2005 would not have taken that Rule change into account  and amended his paper accordingly. The Rule change was adopted into Full Rule in 2005 and by August of that year Gawley would have known it would be. The prohibition on raising the ball into the circle was withdrawn in 2004 but the ban is still present in the ‘updated’ document. Did John Gawley revise the paper personally? I very much doubt it.  The ‘revision’  is just a ‘hatchet job’ which seems to have been carried out (by someone too lazy and/or too stupid) to remove parts of the original in conflict with (sic) current umpiring practice in regard to the raised shot towards the goal.

For example this:- A raised shot has to be made at goal, not deliberately at a defender standing either in goal or between the goal and the striker. from the 2001 paper has been cut from the 2005 version. That  is not updating to reflect any Rule change by the then HRB (which was renamed the FIH Rules Committee in 2011) : no responsible Rule Authority would make a change which permitted deliberate targeting of opponents: the HRB certainly did not and the FIH Rules Committee have not.

This (horribly conflicted) summary passage from the 2001 paper :-

During open play, rising shots at goal are permitted provided the defending players have time to defend the goal rather than themselves. No player should EVER be permitted to raise the ball, anywhere on the pitch, that is dangerous to other players.
If defenders other than goalkeepers dressed in protective clothing or helmeted “kicking backs” (who have goalkeepers’ privileges in the circle), elect to defend their goal, then a shot that would have been permitted against a fully-equipped goalkeeper should be permitted against them. And if they stop or play the ball with their bodies or sticks above their shoulders, they should be penalised unless they were endangered.    (my bold underline)
has had the last four words  removed in the 2005 edition, but the outdated prohibition on a defender playing an above shoulder on target shot is still there – that makes no sense whatsoever in an ‘update’ .

This paper was not just “edited to bring it up to date” (circa 2005) it was  ‘butchered’ to better reflect (sic) current practice.

Of course the removal of unless they were endangered – which entirely changes what was written in the sentence which contains it and the previous sentence – could have been an accident, but that seems unlikely, especially in view of the other deletion. It is ironic that the word ‘danger’ was introduced in the new title but reference to incidents of dangerous play were removed from the ‘updated’ paper

Critique of the original paper. http://martinzigzag.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/contradictions-and-conflicts/

Although absolutely nothing else has been published on the subject since 2001, even the 2005 version is seen as ‘old hat’ by those who consider themselves to be ‘in the know’. This, for example, from both papers:-  ”the same conditions for dealing with a dropping ball apply for shots at goal as elsewhere on the pitch”  has been ‘over-ruled’ by an FIH Umpire (who possibly did not know of the existence of these papers) who declared on an Internet hockey forum  “aerial Rules do not apply to shots at the goal “. This individual described those who would apply the existing published Rules concerning a falling raised ball as having ” stubborn and outdated ideas about what constitutes danger.“

THE 2005 ‘UPDATE’.

The Raised Ball and Danger
by
J M GAWLEY

INTRODUCTION

 No player should ever be put into a position of self-defence against a ball put into the air at any height, be it 15 or 50 centimetres. 
A player having to face a ball approaching in the air should have a clear view of the full flight of that ball and also have time either to 
move out of its way, or to play or attempt to play it in a legitimate and safe manner So far as Goalkeepers are concerned, they 
deliberately put themselves "into the firing line" but are equipped to do so. Nevertheless, even they can be forced into self-protection 
rather than protection of their goal by dangerously-raised balls.

INTENTIONAL LIFT

Lift at an Opponent

If the ball is intentionally put into the air at an opponent at any height anywhere on the pitch in contravention of Rule 9.8: “Players must not intentionally raise the ball from a hit except for a shot at goal” the player who raises the ball is in breach of the Rule. Note that an accidental lift should not be penalised unless it is dangerous in itself or causes danger, e.g. by striking someone. A ball lifted over another player’s stick is NOT an offence unless dangerous. Flicks and scoops are permissible but not if towards an opponent within 5m. Note that it is permissible intentionally to raise the ball for a shot at goal.

Tackling Lift

 There is nothing in the Rules to prevent any player in possession of the ball from lifting it over the stick of an opponent to resist a tackle,
 be it in the outfield, in the circle, or entering the circle. The last point is important: where the ball is lifted in such a manner over an 
opponent's stick and enters the circle while still in the air, there is NO offence.
 Tactical Lift
 When a ball is deliberately raised in a legitimate manner (normally a scoop or flick) anywhere on the pitch the umpire should decide 
upon its merits. This form of play is used for tactical purposes, often to reverse the opposing defence. In general, it is fair to say that 
players who raise the ball in this manner consciously try to avoid danger to anyone in the flight path of the ball. The umpire is therefore 
seeking reasons why such a raised ball SHOULD be penalised. A player receiving a dropping ball should be given time and space in 
which safely to do so without real or threatened interference from an opponent (Rule 9.9):”Players must not approach within 5 metres 
of an opponent receiving a falling raised ball until it has been received, controlled and is on the ground.” Note that such a ball MAY land
 in the circle without penalty unless it has been intentionally HIT into the air.

If a player of each team is already in the place where the ball will land, i.e. not having moved into that space, then any danger from the falling ball is caused by the player who initially raised it. Accordingly, a free hit should quickly be awarded against the player who raised the ball.However, if a player of each team moves to a position where a ball that has already been raised will land, the first player to arrive must be permitted to play the ball and the opponent must keep clear. But, if both are likely to arrive at the same time, then the player of the team that raised the ball must remain clear until the ball has landed and should be penalised for failure to do so.

ACCIDENTAL LIFT

On the other hand, the ball is often raised accidentally, usually by a stick interfering with the flight of the ball, rather than by any deliberate attempt to play it. In such circumstances, the ball is likely to fly upwards in an unpredictable trajectory, thus being both dangerous in itself and likely to cause danger. A ball hit some 15 cm in the air into a crowded circle is an example. The Umpire, therefore, is likely to be seeking reasons why this raised ball should NOT be penalised but should wait to determine whether there is actual danger.

INTERPRETATION

 No matter where on the field the ball is raised, and no matter what the circumstances of the lift, the umpire must always judge whether 
a player has been genuinely endangered in any of the ways described. Umpires should be on their guard against players who simulate 
ducking out of the way of raised balls simply to try to "con" them into thinking that such a ball is dangerous. Similarly, umpires should not
 be misled by defenders, often in goal, who allow themselves to be hit by the ball so as to be able to claim that the shot was dangerous.
 The same standards of judgement must be applied wherever and whenever the ball is raised. It is therefore important that umpires 
recognise, and agree before each game according to the level and playing conditions of that game, what is the likely distance inside 
which those particular players are likely to have to defend their own persons instead of playing the ball properly. Other factors need to 
be considered for raised shots at goal, however.  

RAISED SHOTS AT GOAL IN OPEN PLAY

 The goal is there to be shot at. The goalkeeper is well-protected and has no grounds for protest about high shots at goal. So far as any
 other defenders are concerned, if they stand in the goal to defend high shots, they must accept the penalty if the ball hits them contrary
 to Rule 9.10: Field players must not stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their bodies.” They can be said
, perhaps, to have arrogated to themselves the duty of goalkeeper without having goalkeeper's privileges. High shots include hits, flicks 
and scoops.

Having said this, it must nevertheless be remembered that no player should ever be put to the necessity of self-defence, and that includes goalkeepers. Although properly protected, goalkeepers can still be injured by balls projected at them from so short a range and in such a manner that they are unable to adopt a naturally protective posture.

 In high level games, with physically fit, young, skilled players, it is possible that the minimum safe distance for a rising shot is about 3 m
etres. In less skilled games, that distance will probably be not less than 9 metres and could be more. In all cases, the distances may 
increase dependent on other circumstances, not least whether the players defending the goal have a clear view of the whole flight of the 
ball from the moment that it is first propelled upwards. Judgement of what is dangerous must necessarily be subjective. Perhaps the 
soundest advice for the umpire is to consider that any raised ball is dangerous unless proved otherwise. Players close to or near the line
 of a shot at goal must have time and room to react safely and play the ball legitimately. 

In general, it is probably fair to say that a rising ball that would not be permitted on the grounds of safety in the outfield should not be permitted, for the same reasons, in the circle, whether for a shot at goal or, indeed, for clearing a shot at goal – a goalkeeper’s kick, for example. The exception is that the intentionally raised hit is permitted in the circle for a shot at goal; otherwise the same parameters apply.

Note, however, that this advice is concerned mainly with high shots in OPEN PLAY. In these circumstances, there are usually few players
 in the circle and, as often as not, the shot is made in a one-on-one situation. During Penalty Corners, where numbers of players are 
required by the Rules to operate within the circle, other considerations apply, all concerned primarily with Safety.
 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. Note that 
any defender may use any part of the front of the stick at any height to defend a specific shot at goal (Rule 9.6) but, if the shot was going
 to miss, a penalty corner must be awarded. Other than that, any raised ball in the circle and its defence must be judged on its merits,
 i.e., was the shot dangerous in itself or, alternatively, did it cause danger?
 

RAISED SHOTS AT GOAL AT PENALTY CORNERS AND FROM CORNERS

 Players in the 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.
 Although hits to the attack from the area of corner flags (corners, hits-in & free hits) are taken in open play, they are considered here 
with the Penalty Corner as likely to cause crowding within the circle.
 It can thus be seen that any ball raised into or within the circle in such circumstances has a great potential for danger. Such crowding 
underlines the need for umpires to judge whether players close to or in the flight path of a raised ball have time properly to react to it. 
This is not to say that all raised balls in the circle are dangerous, nor that balls raised unintentionally into the circle are necessarily 
dangerous, but merely to indicate the potential for danger and hence the need for acute awareness and observation by the umpire.

Penalty Corner

 The defenders (including the Goalkeeper) are prohibited from deliberately raising the ball from a hit within the circle, or indeed outside it
 - Rule 9.8 applies.
 The attackers, however, MAY deliberately raise the ball from a hit or other type of shot in the circle, but only for a shot at goal - not for a
 hit across the circle, for example. The one caveat to this permission is that the FIRST hit at goal at a Penalty Corner must comply with 
Rule 13.2k: “if the first shot at goal is a hit (as opposed to a push, flick or scoop), the ball must cross the goal-line, or be on a path which
 would have resulted in its crossing the goal-line, at a height of not more than 460mm (the height of the backboard) before any deflection,
 for a goal to be scored.”
 Generally, the ball that is raised in the circle has a possible element of danger. But remember that any player may raise the ball over the
 stick of an opponent to resist a tackle.
 Once the first hit at goal in a Penalty Corner has been made, all subsequent hits may be at any height consonant with safety, as already
 described. However, still with the Penalty Corner, any other stroke to raise the ball may be made at any time, with no limit being placed 
on the height of the ball at any part of its flight. The only caveat on these forms of shot - usually scoops or flicks - is that of safety. In this
 context, if a defender in a normal stance within 5 metres of the first shot at goal is hit by the ball below the knees, a penalty corner should
 be awarded. If the defender is hit above the knee, a free hit should be awarded to the defending team. And let us remember that the 
Penalty Corner Rule - specifically those sections applying to the first hit - ceases to apply if the ball goes beyond 5 metres from the circle 
before re-entering it (Rule 13.2m).
 The Scooped 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 the
ir sticks whilst it is above their shoulders, for hitting the ball away in a dangerous manner, nor for using any part of their body to stop the 
ball. Only if the flick or scoop is at very short range, or if there are players in the line of sight between striker and goal, might the striker 
be penalised, and then usually only if the ball is still rising or if it is so low throughout its flight as to be obscured, for the receiver, by other
 players.
 Umpires should remember that the same conditions for dealing with a dropping ball apply for shots at goal as elsewhere on the pitch
 i.e. the player receiving the ball must be given time and space (5 metres) in which to receive it safely, i.e. the receiving defender should 
not be harried by a close opponent. 

The Rising Shot

Having accepted the caveats noted above for the Penalty Corner, let us broaden thought to embrace the crowded circle. The same considerations previously mentioned still apply, i.e. the goal is there to be shot at, and defenders who arrogate to themselves the duty of goalkeeper must accept the penalty if they prevent a goal other than legitimately with their sticks. But, given the crowding already discussed, it is even more important that players defending any raised ball, regardless of its height, should have a clear view of the ball’s trajectory and have time either to remove themselves from its path or to play or try to play the ball legitimately. If they do not have such time, the ball raised at them must be considered dangerous and penalised immediately. But umpires should be on their guard against players who deliberately allow themselves to be hit by the ball so as to be able to claim that the lift was dangerous.

 It is the rising ball that is most likely to cause most danger, either because it can strike a player's body, where its energy is likely to be 
absorbed, or because it can touch part of a stick and fly off unpredictably, with no loss of energy, to hit another player. 

Summary

When the circle is crowded, such as at Penalty Corners and for hits from near the corner flag areas, there is a high potential for danger 
from any raised ball. Umpires must be alert to the risks involved but should not overreact merely because the ball is in the air or the body 
of a defender in the goal is struck by the ball. They should instead consider whether players have the necessary time and distance to avoid 
physical contact with the raised ball in favour of playing or attempting to play it legitimately, and not flinch from applying the appropriate 
penalty if avoiding action could have been taken.

The necessity for the first HIT at goal at a penalty corner not to cross the goal-line at a height greater than 460mm should also be borne in mind.

Last updated on 13^th August 2005

************************

Critique of the original umpire coaching paper. http://martinzigzag.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/contradictions-and-conflicts/ 
 

.

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

Field Hockey Rules: What is a dangerously played ball?

The Field Hockey Rule about playing the ball in a dangerous way is sparse. Much of the information about the dangerous propelling of the ball is distributed among other Rules and also has mixed into it Guidance about the playing of the ball with the body – which is,or should be, considering that a dangerously played ball is described as one that causes legitimate evasive action, an entirely different and separate matter.

Rule 9.8  Players must not play the ball dangerously or in a way which leads to dangerous play.

Players are permitted to raise the ball with a flick or scoop provided it is not dangerous. A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous.(Placed here for the purposes of this article, but taken from Rule 9.9, which is the Rule prohibiting the intentional raising of the ball with a hit – note there is no lower or minimum height given  for “considered dangerous” )

A ball is considered dangerous when it causes legitimate evasive action by players.

“Play the ball dangerously” is not described nor is “play which leads to dangerous play” or “dangerous play” because these are subjective judgements made by an umpire. A ball is dangerous when it causes legitimate evasive action by players. Again, legitimate evasive action is a subjective judgement made by an umpire. We are not told on what criteria such judgements should be based, many umpires describe the process as  ‘gut instinct’ and ‘selling the decision’ and seem happy with that if players don’t complain (not that players are allowed to complain, that is considered dissent.)

There are objective criteria that can be used but they apply only to the propelling of the ball within 5m of an opponent; all judgement of a ball in relation to the dangerous propelling of it  from beyond 5m of an opponent is entirely subjective. This means that players can only appeal for or against dangerous play decisions when the action in question took place within 5m of the player endangered, or not endangered as the case may be; there is no appeal (video referral) possible to examine an umpire’s personal opinion that the propelling  of the ball  in other circumstances was or was not dangerous.What criteria would the video umpire look for? Evasive action is not based on the fact that evasive action was taken but whether or not the evasion was legitimate, and that is a personal opinion.

The lack of objective criteria when the ball is propelled at a player from beyond 5m is unsatisfactory because 5m is an unrealistic ‘cut off’ distance – and it is treated as a cut off distance although it is mentioned only as a distance within which some actions are considered dangerous -  there is in fact no limit to the distance from which a ball propelled at another player may be considered dangerous to that player, but ‘in practice’ 5m is, illogically, rigidly adhered to.

The basing of “dangerously played ball” on “legitimate evasive action” i.e. the judgement of the action of the player propelling the ball being determined by the reaction of the player possibly endangered by that ball, is also illogical: there are a number of circumstances where there will be no reaction at all from the defender, the defender being unaware that the ball has been propelled in their direction and others where the velocity of the ball and the distance it was propelled from (even considerably beyond 5m) makes evasion impossible.

In addition to those problems there are problems of ‘attitude’ to the positioning of defenders, particularly when positioned between the goal and a shooter in the circle. Some umpires see evasive action as an attempt to ‘con’ the umpire into believing that a ball was propelled dangerously or see successful evasive action as a demonstration that the ball was not played dangerously – “…the player had time to get out of the way of it so not dangerous” is an often expressed view. The fact that a dangerously played ball is defined by legitimate evasive action so evasive action can be legitimate and a reason to declare a ball dangerous doesn’t seem to lodge in the minds of these people, they don’t see any contradiction between their view and the Rule Guidance given in the Rules of Hockey. The same umpires also often take the view that a player who has failed to take evasive action has remaining in the path of the ball with the intention of using the body to play it – even when there is clearly an attempt to play at the ball with the stick – such players are said to place their body behind the stick with the intention of playing the ball with the body if they miss it with the stick. (As an aside to that, the same umpires may hold the view that defenders are obliged to defend their feet with the stick, so should position the stick in front of the feet – but having positioned the feet behind the stick, if a foot is hit with the ball, there is then from the prior ‘argument’ assumed to be intention to play the ball with the foot). These conflicting ‘catch 22′ style attitudes alone are sufficient grounds for the  provision of objective criteria for the judgement of a dangerously played ball, when the ball is raised at velocity at defenders, rather than the sole use of  purely subjective judgement (or, more commonly, the following of specific instruction or even just ingrained habit or ‘dogma’).

*********************************

Rule 9.9 prohibits the intentional raising of the ball with a hit but contains Guidance on the raising of the ball towards an opponent, who is within 5m, with a flick or a scoop. That Guidance would be more appropriately placed in Rule 9.8. (as above)

Rule 9.9  Players must not intentionally raise the ball from a hit except for a shot at goal.

A raised hit must be judged explicitly on whether or not it is raised intentionally. It is not an offence to raise the ball unintentionally from a hit, including a free hit, anywhere on the field unless it is dangerous.

Players are permitted to raise the ball with a flick or scoop provided it is not dangerous. A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous. (Note there is no lower or minimum height given  for “dangerous” to be considered)

A defender who is clearly running into the shot or into the taker without attempting to play the ball with their stick must be penalised for dangerous play.

The above clause (which, for an unknown reason, is the only one given twice in the Rules of Hockey) clearly doesn’t belong in Guidance to a Rule about a dangerously played ball ( a ball propelled in a dangerous way) or a Rule about the intentional raising of the ball with a hit. It would be more appropriately be placed  in Rule 9.11. the ball/body contact Rule. Self-endangerment could in any case be described as irresponsible or reckless play, rather than dangerous play, to distinguish it from play that endangered another player, particularly with the ball. If a defender’s action does endanger both parties then it is both reckless (and/or irresponsible) and dangerous.

Clearly the raising of the ball with a hit referred to in Rule 9.9 cannot be considered to be dangerous play every time it occurs even if it is done intentionally and this has given rise to an ‘in practice’ contradiction of the Rule Guidance, which is expressed succinctly in the Umpire Manger’s Briefing for FIH Tournaments as “forget-lifted – think danger“. In another passage the UMB states “a ball raised to half-shin-pad height is not dangerous” (which is generally true only if the player hit is standing at the time). Again ‘in practice’ a raised hit, outside the circle or across the circle, intentional or not, is not penalised unless it is hit at above knee height towards a  player positioned within 5m of the striker or is hit at a player’s upper body and causes evasive action or hits the player (and sometime not even then).

Legal intentional raising of the ball with a hit, that is when the raised hit is an on target shot at the goal, has developed a mythology of its own. In fact at the 2008  Olympics a verbal UMB seems to have issued to the match umpires (and television commentators),

which declared that no ‘on target’ shot at the goal, be it raised hit or flick, could be considered dangerous play. The same advice was given to the umpires and television commentators at the 2010 World Cups Such instruction makes a nonsense of course of  (the already regularly ignored) ‘legitimate evasive action’ as a definition of a dangerously played ball.

The real issue with the raised hit is the raising of the ball into the circle from outside the circle and the raising of the ball across rather than at the goal in the circle. The latter is not a big problem at the moment, it happens too often to be accidental, such hits are commonly raised to just below knee height, but are generally dealt with by umpires reasonable well when it is obvious they are dangerous. It may however become more of an issue with the event of the ‘Own Goal’ and the possibility of more ‘hit and hope’.  ‘Accidentally’ raised hits across the face of the goal – if they are not raised to above knee height they are not going to be penalised if current ‘practice’ is any guide – that will not be good enough for a supposed emphasis on safety and certainly unfair.

The present Rule is inadequate to deal with the illegally intentionally raised hit because of the effect of the advice given in UMB’s and because it is very difficult to be sure that a players has raised the ball intentionally- without certainty there can be no penalty, although there appears to be no difficulty in being certain that what looked like an accidental or forced ball/body contact was ‘in fact’ intentional or made voluntarily .

The easiest way to deal with intentional raising of hits into the circle is to prohibit any raising of the ball directly into the circle with a hit (with a small leeway for surface imperfection and ball skipping  e.g. ball height off the surface). At the same time the ban on the propelling of any ball directly into the circle from a free awarded in the opponent’s 23m area  should be withdrawn (which would in turn free the Self-Pass from then unnecessary restrictions imposed because of the ban on playing a free directly into the circle – but that is in a previous article). It is sufficient for safety of the direct pass into the circle that the ball be taken back outside the hash circle .

We don’t need ‘belt and braces’ on the free within the 23m area, when there is no corresponding restriction on playing the ball into the circle in open play – except that it should not be intentionally raised – especially when such raising of the ball is so often ignored.

********************************

9.10 Players must not approach within 5 metres of an opponent receiving a falling raised ball until it has been received, controlled and is on the ground.

The initial receiver has a right to the ball. If it is not clear which player is the initial receiver, the player  of the team which raised the ball must allow the  opponent to receive it.

This Rule which prohibits approaching a player receiving a ‘falling raised ball’ neglects to mention dangerous playing of the ball at all or even describe what is meant by a ‘falling raised ball’ – all balls which are raised in any degree will fall to ground.

‘In practice’ a ball which has been raised high enough to be considered ‘falling’ in a way that may lead to dangerous play, is typically one that has been raised (considerably) above head height at the apex of its flight, and generally, it will have been propelled between 15m and 70m in a horizontal direction, but could just go straight up and down again, without significant horizontal travel, as rebounds or deflections sometimes do.  The stroke most commonly used to raise the ball over long distances at heights above head height is referred to as a scoop stroke and the ball itself as an ‘aerial ball’ ( a term that has never been used in any rulebook).

There are two ways in which a player ‘throwing’ an aerial ball may endanger opponents. The first to to play the aerial ball in such a way as it is raised that an opponent is obliged to take evasive action (this could better be put ‘forced to self-defence’) – the endangered player would normally have to be within 5m and not attempting to play the ball intentionally with the body (which means he or she should be attempting to play the ball with the stick) to be considered endangered. Exceptions might be when the player hit,  was a player from the same team as the player propelling the ball, who was not watching the ball as it was raised or an opposition player who was unsighted as the ball was raised, perhaps by another player moving in front of him.

Endangerment from the drag-flick shot at the goal, which is a specialized development of the scoop used as a shot at a penalty corner, is frequently the result of either accidental (own side) or deliberate (opposition) sight blocking – sometimes its a combination of the two, when the flicker deliberately uses the body of an out-runner as a means to shield sight of the ball and the path of the shot from the players positioned behind the out-runner- often endangering both the out-runner and (if the out-runner evades the ball) the player positioned behind him. That is how Geoff Irwin of Cookstown, who was positioned on the goal-line, had his skull fractured in a EHL game last season: he didn’t see the ball before it hit him.

The second way the scoop may endanger is if it is ‘thrown’ so that it will land in an area where opposing players are already positioned within 5m of each other, most commonly when the contesting players are side on to each other and the ball is falling between them rather than well wide to one side of them (which is unlikely to be dangerous in itself or to lead to dangerous play). In such situations the scooper has created a potentially dangerous situation – that is play that leads to dangerous play – (I preferred the previous wording “play likely to lead to dangerous play” because the danger need not actually occur for the scoop to be penalised, the umpire intervening at the right moment to prevent dangerous play developing ). Where the ball is falling into a contested area the umpire can wait to allow the players of the same team as the scooper to retreat and give room to the the opposition receiver (in which case there is no need to penalise the aerial), but must intervene and penalise the player who lifted the ball, if the same team player fail to give the required 5m space. In these circumstances there has been no encroachment offence (or if there is further encroachment it is irrelevant) as the opposing players were already too close when the ball  was raised, so the lifter of the ball has played it dangerously, if there is retreat by the same team players in the area in which the ball is falling there is no need to stop the game to penalise the lifter’s offence – timing of the whistle is critical to safe outcome and game flow – but better too soon than too late.

An encroachment offence following an aerial pass occurs when the aerial is played into clear space or to an individual receiver in space and then after the ball is in the air but before the ball has been controlled to ground opponent/s close to challenge for the ball.

With the introduction of the Direct-Lift from a Free-ball, especially as it coincides with the introduction of the Own Goal, the use of an aerial from outside the 23m area directly into the circle may (probably will) lead to some dangerous  situations. The suggestion that the Direct-Lift be not permitted directly into the circle has been ignored (which is strange when no propelling of the ball into the circle is allowed at all from a Free awarded within the 23m area). The scoop into the circle in open play will not be anything like the same as the scoop used in a set-piece – just as the result of a drag-flick at a penalty corner is not much like the use of a scoop in open play.

Because the specialist scoop shot called the drag-flick is a shot at the goal the endangerment of players moving to close down on the shot and attempting to block/intercept it with their sticks seems to be completely overlooked (for reasons which are entirely unclear, it is the defenders rather than the flicker who are the more likely to be penalised if a defender is hit with the ball – even at well above knee height-  in such circumstances) and nor, irrationally, do defenders defending rising shots made to above head height get the same clear space protection as those fielding a falling ball, especially in the outfield – senior umpires have even declared (Dunn) that the space requirement for a falling ball does not apply when a lob or scoop shot is made at the goal because “aerial Rules do not apply to shots at goal” (which is contradicted by Gawley). 

***************************************

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

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

(From Rule 9.9) A defender who is clearly running into the shot or into the taker without attempting to play the ball with their stick must be penalised for dangerous play. (irresponsible or reckless play – “Players are expected to act responsibly at all times.”

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

Rule 9.11. has been included in this article about the dangerous propelling of the ball because guidance from another Rule on the propelling of the ball contained a Guidance clause which properly belongs  in this Rule. In passing it is worth mentioning again that the restoration of the word ‘intentionally’ to Rule 9.11, so that it reads :  Field players must not intentionally stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their body. would do away with the need for :-  It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player. The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball…

The following clause which is tacked onto that :- ….or if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way. is a complete mystery. I have no idea what it means and have never met anyone who could satisfactorily explain it.

Is it the positioning that is the offence? If so, why does an umpire permit such positioning, at a penalty corner for example? Is it the prior intention of stopping the ball with hand,  foot or body that is the offence? If so, how is such intention determined if the defender is 10m – 15m from the shooter and has no certainty about the direction and height at which  the ball will be propelled? The only sensible explanation I can come up with is that this clause was intended to prevent/penalise  breaking down of play with the body from short range i.e. from within playing distance of the ball: actions such as falling across the path of a ball holder, effectively ‘tackling’ with the body – which is obviously potentially dangerous to opponents and irresponsibly reckless.

In passing it is necessary to point out yet again that there is no ‘gains benefit’ clause to give exception to the first clause of the present guidance, so if a player unintentionally or unavoidably makes a foot/ball contact that  prevents the ball going into the goal there is still no offence: that situation needs to be addressed. Provided there has been no prior dangerous play or forcing of contact by attackers, a penalty stroke is just in such circumstances. I am, however, very much opposed to a reintroduction of the ‘catch all’ gains benefit, where any contact made was (and still is) seen as of benefit and penalised accordingly, that just made a nonsense of the Rule: the sort of nonsense that is still being made of : -The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball

Procedure for Penalty Corner

k. if the first shot at goal is a hit (as opposed to a push, flick or scoop), the ball must cross the goal-line, or be on a path which would have resulted in it crossing the goal-line, at a height of not more than 460 mm (the height of the backboard) before any deflection, for a goal to be scored.

The requirements of this Rule apply even if the ball touches the stick or body of a defender before the first shot at goal.
If the first shot at goal is a hit and the ball is, or will be, too high crossing the goal-line it must be penalised even if the ball is subsequently deflected off the stick or body of another player.

The ball may be higher than 460 mm during its flight before it crosses the goal-line provided there is no danger and provided it would drop of its own accord below 460 mm before crossing the line.

l. for second and subsequent hits at the goal and for flicks, deflections and scoops, it is permitted to raise the ball to any height but this must not be dangerous.

if a defender is within five metres of the first shot at goal during the taking of a penalty corner and is struck by the ball below the knee, another penalty corner must be awarded or is struck on or above the knee in a normal stance, the shot is judged to be dangerous and a free hit must be awarded to the defending team.

The height restriction on a first hit shot at a penalty corner is there for reasons of player safety, but even so the FIH HRB (now the FIH Rules Committee) do not say straight out that a hit shot raised to pass over the goal-line at above 460mm is dangerous play, but only that a goal cannot be scored with such a shot, and it should be penalised – but for what penalised  if not dangerous play? Non-compliance with objective criteria for the scoring of a goal? That is not an offence any more than hitting the ball at the goal from outside the circle is.

The ‘holy cow’ is the shot at the goal, some get apoplectic at the suggestion that any shot at the goal be considered dangerous to defenders “Who have put themselves in the way” etc. etc. (as if defending the goal by positioning in front of it, the only place from which it can be defended, was an illicit action). The term ‘legitimate evasive action’ would never have been coined if evasive action could not be legitimate (which means the defender was legitimately positioned in the first instance) and if such evasion did not describe a dangerously played ball. Where there is no defender to be endangered there can be no dangerously played ball. The very existence of the term ‘dangerously played ball’ means it is possible to endanger a player by propelling the ball (at them). There is no exclusion of the goal from ‘dangerously played ball’. It wouldn’t make much sense if there were, probably in excess of 90% of the balls that are played in a way that could be described as dangerous to others, are shots at the goal. Far fewer shots at goal are penalised than should be. Why? Firstly, because it is legal to raise the ball to any height with a hit at the goal and there is an (encouraged)  perception that defenders cause danger to themselves by their defensive positioning, and that shooters are not responsible for the consequences of high shots made towards defenders positioned between them and the goal. Naturally these notions are not to be found anywhere in writing in any FIH issued document, but ‘in practice’ that is how it plays out.

The principal reason things are viewed that way is because “a dangerously played ball” is (in theory) an almost entirely subjectively determined judgement made by an umpire. In fact, in order to achieve consistency between umpires particularly at FIH Tournament level, umpires follow briefing instructions and do not make case by case judgements about such matters as ball/body contact by defenders in the circle – defenders are routinely ‘automatically’ penalised for any such contact. One has only to listen to the question and answer about a foot contact by a defender in the circle during a video referral to remove all doubt on this point – there is never a question about the intent of the player making contact with the ball, just “Was there any contact?”.  In a short time players come to expect this automatic penalising of any ball/body contact, even to demand it and to play to obtain (force) such contacts by opponents in the circle. This became so much the practice that having a Rule that stated that forcing ball/foot contact was an offence became an embarrassment and a way was found to delete it (while pretending only to transfer such forcing to “other Rules”).  Technically even the forcing of self-defence ceased to exist as an offence and was, presumably, transferred to the dangerous play Rule. Not a ‘big deal’ it might be said, except that the forcing of self-defence is a far better description of the dangerous played ball  than ‘legitimate evasive action’ and not long ago was central to thinking about safety and the control of the raised ball. (see John Gawley’s The Lifted Ball Umpire Coaching document).

That coaching document, first written in 2001, is laughed at now (except the bits that have been ‘cherry picked’ for compliance with current ‘thinking’) not because of the conflict in its content (it is very conflicted) but because it has not been revised since 2005, but a dangerously played ball has been defined as one that “causes legitimate evasive action by players” at least as far back as the earliest rulebook I possess, which is for the year 1976.

Revision of the definition of  ‘a dangerously played ball’  is long overdue, but the FIH Rules Committee have not yet got around to noticing the existence of the drag-flick as a shooting stroke at a penalty corner and seem at present more concerned with changing the descriptions of the way the pitch marking are measured – not the actual measurements just the descriptions of those measurements – and other similar vital concerns.

Most of the  following  suggestion was first made about twelve years ago, but as no-one else has offered an alternative, I repeat it and add to it, for completeness, clauses to cover the aerial ball.

A dangerously played ball ( meets the objective criteria below and) is  a ball propelled in such a way that it forces a player to self-defence or hits that player despite an attempt to evade the ball or to play at it with the stick. .

A player who is hit may have been unable to take defensive action either because of the distance from which the ball was propelled and/or velocity of the ball or because the player was impeded or was unaware that he or she was endangered, being unsighted or unable to track the ball at the critical moments.

Objective criteria:- The ball

a)  is propelled at a player, (A ball passing the side of the head within the shoulder width of the player will be considered ‘at’). and

b) is traveling at above the elbow height of the player (The player standing in a normal upright playing stance) and

c) has been propelled at a velocity that forces self defence to avoid injury.

A subjective judgement because actual speed cannot reliably be determined by eye but an objective one also because the velocity of a ball raised with a flick is comparable with the (seen and remembered) velocity of a ball that was raised with a hit.  The velocity at which injury is probable when the ball is at the head or throat of a player is modest. That a ball will, if not defended or evaded,  hit a player in either area at all is sufficient evidence of endangerment. Players are unlikely to be incapacitated by hits to the chest area from a ball traveling at less  than 50kph, but it is not the intention that umpires should be looking for reasons not to penalise the playing of the ball at an other player at above  elbow height – but the opposite – a ball at that height that forces self-defence should be penalised unless there is good reason not to penalise. A ball that is losing velocity and falling as it reaches the defender may often be considered safe enough to be coped with, but if it is rising and/or has sufficient momentum to carry it around 10m beyond the defending player it should be considered dangerous to that player.

d) has been propelled from less than 20m of the endangered player.

The possibility of a drag-flick into the circle in open play becomes a realistic tactical possibility with the introduction of the Own Goal, so this distance – which was initially 15m – is increased to 20m to cope with that possibility.

e) Any ball propelled at a player within 3m at above knee height will be considered dangerous play, irrespective of  ball velocity.

Circumstances and therefore criteria change when a player is not standing and facing the ball in a normal playing stance e.g when a player has fallen or has been tripped, umpire judgement of endangerment is required when a player is on the ground.

Aerial ball:

A ball may also be considered to be played dangerously if it is raised to above head height with a scoop or scoop-like stroke and has been directed so as to land between players within 5m of each other who are likely to compete for possession of it before it hits the ground.

Even when players are positioned close to each other a ball directed to land well to one side, especially on the flanks and towards the sideline outside the players,  will generally not be considered dangerously played.

Where the ball is lofted over a defender to an attacker who is 2m or more the defender’s goal side of the defender the ball will be considered to have been played into clear space and therefore not dangerously.

An aerial ball may be stopped and taken to ground by defenders in their own circle and by any player in all other parts of the field – excepting attackers in the opponent’s circle – always provided that there is no opponent within 5m of the player playing the ball in this way.

Hitting or deflecting away of a ball at any height above shoulder height is prohibited as dangerous play.

General open play.

Raising the ball into the circle with a hit is prohibited.

(The current ban on playing a free-ball awarded in the opponents 23m area, directly into the circle should be withdrawn)

Raising the ball directly into the circle with a Direct Lift is prohibited

Bouncing the ball into the circle with a Direct lift will need to be judged on its apparent dangers but should be discouraged.

(presently permitted)

Penalty Corner.

If the first shot at goal is a hit it is limited to 460mm as it crosses the goal-line. Any first hit shot which will obviously not cross the goal-line below this height to be penalised as dangerous immediate that is apparent

If the first shot at goal is a flick it is not height limited but the dangerously played ball criteria must be strictly applied. In particular the ball must not be propelled at any player at above elbow height.

Goal to be marked at 120cms with a 50mm tape from goal post to goal post around the back of the goal

The automatic penalising of a player with another penalty corner after being hit below the knee with a shot at goal  during a penalty corner should be withdrawn, it is unjustified, unfair and encourages intimidation by means of hard raised hits into the legs of defenders. The possibility now also exists that such a hit could be made first time from outside the circle into the legs of defenders and result in a deflected ‘own goal’ – this tactical  possibility increases the potential for the dangerous playing of a hit and of the  hit that results directly in danger from high deflections. 

Summary

Apart form the aerial pass, a  dangerously played ball is a ball that has been propelled at a player at above elbow height (120cm for senior men) from within 20m. at a velocity that will force self defence to avoid injury.

The order in which most of criteria are presented does not matter, the critical one however, and therefore the first, is at a player.  It does not matter how high the ball is propelled or at what velocity or from which distance – if it is not at a player it cannot force either evasion or any other sort of self defence and therefore will not be dangerous.

For the aerial ball from the Direct Lift in particular, it is the proximity of opposing players to the chosen landing point and what the same team players do (or do not do) which will determine whether or not the lofted pass will be considered dangerous at point of lift. In open play the scoop can be dangerous to opponents in exactly the same way as the lifted ball described above and may also be dangerous play if lofted to land among opposing player who were within 5m at the time the ball was raised – and the same team players fail to retreat 5m from the landing point.

.

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

Field Hockey: Rule and rule application – opposites

Field Hockey.

Rule 9.9   Players must not intentionally raise the ball from a hit except for a shot at goal.

A raised hit must be judged explicitly on whether or not it is raised intentionally. It is not an offence to raise the ball unintentionally from a hit, including a free hit, anywhere on the field unless it is dangerous.

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. (i.e. with the hand, foot or body)

The umpire presumably saw the lifted hit as accidental and also as not dangerous, because otherwise he would immediately have awarded a 15m to the defence – or did he just ignore it – following the UMB – (which in conflict with Rule Guidance)  instructs “forget lifted, think danger”.

The foot/ball contact is clearly accidental, and there has been for several years now, no ‘gained benefit’ exception clause (which previously could be employed to turn an unintentional breach of Rule 9.11 into an offence) , so there is no justification at all for the award of a penalty corner.

I note that several contributors on FHF are suggesting a penalty stroke ought to be awarded for the benefit gained from the accidental foot/ball contact. That’s very strange,  the rulebook suggest a 15m or “play on” to be correct, there was, according to the Rule Guidance (that is instruction about how the Rule is to be applied) no offence by a defender.

I am not sure that restoring the word ‘intentionally’ to Rule 9.11. would make much different to the way the Rule is applied. It ought to be done however, not least because it is difficult to see why it was removed in the first place, but remains in two forms, voluntarily and intention in the Rule Guidance.

How very odd it is that the way the FIH apparently wants the Rules applied (according to umpires) is not what the FIH publishes in the Rules of Hockey.

.

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

Field Hockey Rules: Participants are expected to know the Rules

Field Hockey.
http://youtu.be/nfEK90Dp8pE

Comments made about my observations on the dangerous play by the attacker in the video clip posted on You Tube.

thats dangerous how?/

the defender makes this situation dangerous by running down the line of the goal with no valid attempt to play the ball

the runner shouldn’t have run straight at the dragflicker

this is another penalty corner EVERY TIME. The attacker is allowed to flick the ball at any height from a penalty corner, and the defender is allowed to stop it, but here the defender has stpped the ball with his Body, not his stick, so it is a fowl.

So much for participants knowing the Rules or even much about playing hockey.

Penalty Corner 13.3.

(l). l for second and subsequent hits at the goal and for flicks, deflections and scoops, it is permitted to raise the ball to any height but this must not be dangerous

 A defender who is clearly running into the shot or into the taker without attempting to play the ball with their stick must be penalised for dangerous play.

 Otherwise, if a defender is within five metres of the first shot at goal during the taking of a penalty corner and is struck by the ball below the knee, another penalty corner must be awarded or is struck on or above the knee in a normal stance, the shot is judged to be dangerous and a free hit must be awarded to the defending team.

It would probably be better if the Guidance for the Rule phrase “but this must not be dangerous” concerning a raised shot, was put first instead of last. It might then be read. Some participants are obviously not reading all of the given Rule Guidance or only remember the bits they like. Attention is diverted away from the Guidance to what is a prohibited action ‘dangerous raising of the ball’ , an action by the attacking player, to give reason to penalise the defender and even becomes ‘slanted’ against the defender because of this change of focus.

(Much the same approach was taken with the P.I.T interpretation of the Obstruction Rule the larger portion of which was about physical contact offences by the tackler (also given in the Rule following the Obstruction Rule) with very little attention given in the Obstruction Rule to obstructive play by the player shielding the ball. This so called P.I.T. interpretation (position, intention, timing by the tackler not the player shielding the ball) destroyed the Obstruction Rule before it was removed in 2004)

There also appears to be no understanding that it is not an offence for a defender to run from the goal towards the ball in order to attempt to play the ball with his stick.

An attempt to play the ball with the stick can only be made from within playing distance of the ball. The defender has therefore to close on the ball in order to get within playing distance.That cannot be done without running towards the ball.

The offence mentioned in the Guidance is the playing of the ball with the body having made no attempt at all to play it with the stick. Defending the body with the stick while running towards the ball is using the stick for self defence with the intention of intercepting the shot with the stick. No other assumption can be made about the intention of a penalty corner defending out-runner without clear supporting evidence.

That a player is hit with the ball is not evidence that he intended to be hit with the ball, such an interpretation would make dangerous propelling of the ball an impossibility -  but that would fit with the way umpires seem to be coached in respect of an ‘on target’ shot at the goal, which sets up a conflict with the above Guidance of course and with “but this must not be dangerous” of the Rule.

A player would not be admonished not to make a dangerous shot if a shot at the goal could not be dangerous – unless of course there is rule Guidance forbidding an attacker to miss the target and shoot wide of the goal LOL. But then why would a shot wide of the goal be dangerous play and an on-target shot not be? There is no answer offered, except “Because we say so”.

Moving on to situations similar to the one above but where the defender is more than 5m from the ball when hit – What decision should the umpire give?

Who has offended?  Obviously if the attacker has played the ball at the defender in a way that endangered him and forced an attempt at self-defence. That should be judged to be dangerous play.

The defender has not offended unless he intentionally plays the ball with the body. At one time there was the possibility of an offence being called against the defender if the defended gained an undue or unfair advantage from an accidental or involuntary ball/body contact, 

BUT that applied ONLY if there had been no prior dangerous play by the attacker i.e the contact was not caused by dangerous play by the player who propelled the ball (or one of his team-mates actively preventing a defender using his stick)

AND ‘gained benefit’, as it was called, no longer applies. It was deleted from the 2007-9 Rules of Hockey, then restored on the strength of a ‘note’ during the period 2007-9, but was not returned to the Rules of Hockey in 2009 or since then. To penalise an accidental or forced ball/body contact on the ground of ‘benefit gained’ by the team of the player hit is now incorrect.

One cannot even use semantics to ‘twist’ intended use and make “disadvantaged opponents”  create an offence because “disadvantaged opponents” applies only when an offence has been committed, it cannot be (should not be but is) used to ‘create’ an offence from an unintentional or forced breach of Rule which is not an offence . An unintentional breach of Rule 9.11. is not an offence:-

Rule Guidance 9.11.

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

The ‘bottom line’ is that a player should not propel the ball at an opponent in a way that could result in injury to that opponent if hit with the ball. At the moment any ball propelled at an opponent at knee height or above could be considered dangerous play but there is no Rule or Rule Guidance to that effect – it is an umpire judgement and one that many umpires seem incapable of making correctly.

There is no reason at all to penalise a player hit with the ball unless he intentionally used his body to play the ball – and such intention must be clear and certain. The same standard as is applied to the intentionally lifted hit and was applied to forcing offences, before forcing was removed as an offence in 2011, must be applied to ball/body contact. The vast majority of ball/body contacts should be “play on” situations.

It’s  odd how readily umpires have taken to the deletion of ‘forcing’ when one considers their reluctance (and even the outright refusal of some) to stop applying “gained benefit” *(the forcing offence is now “dealt with by other Rules” in which the action under consideration is also an offence . We have in many cases at present the absurdity of the forcing of self-defence (which is dangerous play) from a high shot incorrectly being ignored, combined with penalty against a defender hit with the ball for “benefit gained” or “disadvantaged opponents” even though the defender has not committed an offence and the benefit gained clause was removed from Rule 9.11 years ago.

There is an important distinction to be made between an accidental or forced breach of the ball/body contact Rule – not an offence – and an offence. In the case of ball/body contact an offence occurs ONLY when such contact is made voluntarily (intentionally). There are some individuals who insist that voluntarily does not have the same meaning as intentionally – and there may indeed be a subtle difference – but those who insist there is a difference don’t explain what it is in the context of the Rule Guidance. No explanation has ever been offered by the FIH Rules Committee (previously the FIH HRB) for the change of word.

In the majority of cases, particularly at the higher levels the shooter ought to be given a personal penalty, at least a yellow card, for deliberately targeting (making no attempt whatsoever to avoid hitting)  the out-running player with the ball in the way seen in the video – that would be placing the emphasis on safety and also, incidentally, on skill – while penalising dangerous play. The idea that a defender is obliged to allow an attacker to shoot without interference (that is without attempting to close and tackle with the stick) is a nonsense.

.

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

Field Hockey Rules: Body hit on goal-line

This is from a question posted recently on Internet field hockey forum. The original question was ‘slanted’ by an implied criticism of the positioning of the defender,  the critical remark has been omitted.

GK is beaten, player comes in to take shot at goal. A defender is positioned on the goal-line ……………. Shot or flick is taken within 5m of the defender and  hits defender on the body and goes out.

What call should be made?

There were only two replies made to this question on the forum. The first was , “It depends” and reference to a pinned post on the forum which is also inconclusive; the second was “Penalty stroke“. The second answer is clearly incorrect, the first was not an answer.

(I assume here that a ball that hits a standing defender “on the body” has been raised to above knee height.)

Here is my opinion based on the current Rules of Hockey.

Rule 9.8  Players must not play the ball dangerously or in a way which leads to dangerous play.

A ball is considered dangerous when it causes legitimate evasive action by players.

‘Legitimate evasive action’ (which I believe would be better expressed as “the forcing of an opponent to self-defence” an action referred to in John Gawley’s 2001 umpire coaching paper ‘The Lifted Ball’) is not the only definition of a dangerously played ball, there are also objective criterion which apply irrespective of causing an opponent to take evasive action to avoid (or try to avoid) being hit with the ball.

9.9 Players must not intentionally raise the ball from a hit except for a shot at goal.

A raised hit must be judged explicitly on whether or not it is raised intentionally. It is not an offence
to raise the ball unintentionally from a hit, including a free hit, anywhere on the field unless
it is dangerous.

If the ball is raised over an opponent’s stick or body on the ground, even within the circle, it is
permitted unless judged to be dangerous.

Players are permitted to raise the ball with a flick or scoop provided it is not dangerous. A flick or
scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous. (My bold. No mention here of height or velocity)

Putting the last clause above with that relating to a shot at goal during a penalty corner which is raised to above knee height, and assuming that rules that apply to flicks and scoops also apply to raised hits (which seems sensible as they are mentioned in the same Rule ); a hit or a flick that is raised to above knee height and at a player who is within 5m, must be considered dangerous play – evasive action is not mentioned in either Rule 9.9 or the penalty corner Rules.

Whether or not a ball raised from within 5m endangers a player has nothing whatsoever to do with his skill level or his reaction times, it depends entirely on the height and velocity of the ball, that is the propensity of that ball to injure anyone it was propelled at – and in any case a ball has endangered a player if  self-defence is forced (caused).

It might be acceptable, even if velocity is not mentioned in the Rule or Rule Guidance, to say a ball raised high at a player is not dangerous if it is of low velocity, a lob for example. It is not however, in my view, acceptable to suggest that a raised ball of high velocity is not dangerous because of the presumed skill level of the players. There are no differences in Rules or differences in application of Rule for different levels of play or presumed differences in skill levels. Even the variations to the Rules of Hockey that do exist for International level i.e. Tournament play, are not based on the perceived skills of the players. The two minute suspension for a green card in FIH International Tournaments and variation in substitution procedures are  not skill-level based Rule variations.

If a ball will injure a player if he does not defend himself against it then it has endangered him. It is irrelevant to the offence of endangerment (dangerous play) if the defence is successful or unsuccessful, (the player plays the ball with his stick, evades the ball or is hit with it) it is the causing  (forcing) by dangerous play of a defensive action to avoid injury that is the offence – in fact defines the offence – the same ball will not be considered dangerous play if it is not propelled at a player. If the ball is successfully defended but nonetheless disadvantages the defender or the umpire wishes to discourage such dangerous play, then the umpire should penalise the player who propelled the ball. A ball may be penalised as dangerous even if successfully defended with a stick, the criteria is endangerment not injury.

Players of high skill level do not necessarily have faster reactions than the average club player and are not exempt from the unexpected or from injury if hit with the ball. In any case attackers of equally high skill level to the defenders opposing them in top level games should have the skill not to propel the ball at an opponent.

It is obvious that ‘in back’ of the answers given (and not given) to the forum question  is the prevailing attitude that a different approach is or ought to be taken to a raised shot at the goal than might be taken to a ball raised at a player in mid-field; there are no grounds for this view. The fact that a ball may be intentionally raised with a hit while shooting at the goal does not nullify any Rule concerning playing the ball in a way that endangers another player.

The Rule Guidance would be improved with the addition of reference to velocity and height but it is not ambiguous – any ball raised at above knee height at a player who is within 5m is dangerous play and should be penalised as such, especially if that player or his team are disadvantaged by the offence. There is no reason for the umpire to reward either dangerous play or recklessness or lack of shooting skill just because the ball is propelled at the goal: players cannot legitimately shoot ‘through’ opponents. That unfortunately is not a view shared by all, in fact the opposite view is actively promoted and not just by the ignorant as in this quote: -

“Penalty corners are another story all together I believe in the higher grades the posties should have to wear a mask and with saying that everyone that plays hockey know the risk and still choose to put themselves in the line of fire. Rules state everything goes in the D IF you are having a direct shot at goal if you choose to stand there knowing full well that’s the rule they are there at their own risk. It’s not a wimpy sport if you can’t deal with it don’t play it and stay at home and knit”

 but much the same view can be expressed even by (or especially by) umpires and umpire coaches but ‘dressed’ in  moderate language,

There is not a great deal of difference between saying “At the higher levels almost no shot will be considered dangerous.” (from an umpire coach, with what “almost” might mean not explained) and “Rules state everything goes in the D IF you are having a direct shot at goal “.

It may well be the case that at higher levels umpires will not penalise dangerous play, because despite Rule Guidance to the contrary, it is in their opinion not dangerous, that is evasive action is not seen as legitimate or a player hit with the ball is judged, without any evidence other than the fact of being hit with the ball, to have  intended to use the body to play it.

There is a strong case for the use of existing objective criteria and for the introduction of additional objective criteria to deal with shots made from beyond 5m i.e. up to 15m from a player – subjective judgement alone is clearly not good enough i.e. it is unsafe or is not ‘judgement’ at all, the decision always going against the defender as per the instructions the umpire has been given. The Rules do not state that “everything goes” when a direct shot at goal is being made, that would be the same as saying that “there is a Rule that there is no Rule”, which is illogical. But regrettably umpires, and so of course players, behave as if this is the case.

Acceptance of risk is acceptance of the risk of accidental incidents, such as deflections, only and not of deliberate and/or reckless breaches of Rule.

The correct answer to the question posed at the start is a 15m free to the defence for a clear contravention of   ” ball propelled at a player within 5m at above knee height” which, according to Rule Guidance, is dangerous play.

The ball does not of course have to be raised above knee height to be dangerous to a defender who has fallen to the ground. Here is an example of clueless umpiring that illustrates this point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxEGS7m478Y&feature=colike

If we pretend for the moment that there is a ‘gained benefit’ clause (which is clearly necessary to deal with incidents like this) or that the body/ball contact by the defender hit was intentional, then the first ball/body contact should have been penalised and a penalty stroke awarded.

But the umpire did not intervene, he allowed a second shot by another attacker. That second shot was made  into the body of the defender, who was still on the ground, that shot was clearly dangerous and reckless (the attacking player had time and choices). The umpire should have then awarded a 15m, he should not, having played ‘advantage’, allowing a second shot, have reverted to a penalty stroke for the first contact and nor should he have awarded a penalty stroke for the second. As the UMB points out, whistle timing is critical and common sense should be applied.
.

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

Field Hockey Rules: For Safety Reasons

Field Hockey

Rule 13.2

h. from a free hit awarded to the attack within the 23 metres area, the ball must not be played into the circle until it has travelled at least 5 metres or has been touched by a player of either team other than the player taking the free hit.

Is this because a free hit is inherently dangerous or because direct hits into the circle in open play – no matter how made – are not dangerous?

The attacker in the clip below deliberately breaches two Rules when playing the ball into the circle.

1) Use of forehand edge when hitting the ball hard.

2) Intentionally raising the ball with a hit.

Both offences are ignored (or not seen) by the umpire – and that, although clearly incorrect, is obviously what the players expected.

There is a probably a third offence. I think raising the ball into a group of  players from opposing sides who are positioned in front of the goal to be play likely to lead to dangerous play (the previous wording of the dangerously played ball Rule) – now that the wording is “leads to dangerous play” the  judgement “likely to” has been removed. This begs the question “What would be considered a dangerously raised ball in these circumstances?” 

It would make far more sense to allow a free awarded in the 23m area to be played directly into the circle but to prohibit any raising of the ball into the circle with a hit – accidental or not – and  also to prohibit an above knee height deflection of the ball into the circle off the stick of an attacker. Treating an open play raised ball differently to one played from a free awarded in the opposition’s 23m area – for safety reasons – is absurd when there is such a cavalier attitude to obvious and potentially dangerous breaches of Rule in open play.

Why has this been allowed to happen – for consistency, common sense, because ” It is what the FIH wants” ?  (Which is obviously not the case as it conflicts with the Rules of Hockey provided by the FIH)

.

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

Field Hockey Rules: Interwoven myths

Field Hockey: Dangerous play and ball/body contact myths

There are a number assertions for which no support in Rule or Rule Guidance is to be found but which are firmly held to be true by many participants. By umpires (because of coaching and observed ‘practice’) and by players (because of the way umpires apply the Rules). The latter is called ‘player expectation’ by umpires and is used as a justification for continuing to interpret and apply the Rule in the way they do. This process gives rise to ‘urban myths’. I am going to explore here those myths connected to the various Rules which are brought to bear when one player plays the ball at or into another, or a player ‘plays’ the ball with their body, intentionally or otherwise.

The myths

The assertions made in these ‘myths’ are generally corruption, misinterpretation or even inversion of Rules or the Rules Guidance. Occasionally they are pure invention, the creation of a myth based on the acceptance of a previous evolved myth called ‘practice’.

“All ball/body contacts should be penalised” (are offences).
A contradiction of the Rule Guidance
It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player. The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball or if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way.

.
“Defenders have an obligation to defend their feet” (and should be penalised if they fail to do so even when contact is forced by an opponent).
Here an assumption is made that any defender positioned to intercept the ball or positioning to tackle, who is hit with the ball, intended to be so hit (without the intent there would be no offence). There are no grounds for such a sweeping assumption, each incident must be judged separately on clear evidence of intent or willingness to be hit with the ball.

The speed with which the offence of forcing such contact (specifically an offence until 1^st January 2011) has been turned into an offence by the player the ball is forced into, is astonishing. Such forcing is now supposed to be dealt with by “other Rules”so it should still be considered an offence – the problem is that the “other Rules” have not been identified by the Rules Committee, but dangerous play and intimidation are both possibilities where the forcing is powerfully done.

.
“All ball/body contacts are of benefit or advantage to the player making the contact and disadvantage opponents”.
Not only is this untrue it is irrelevant. Gaining benefit from a ball/body contact is not an offence and nor does it create an offence. The gaining of a benefit is mentioned in the Rules in relation to the playing of advantage when an offence has been committed. It is no longer used to create an offence from a breach of Rule (such as stopping the ball with the body) that was not an offence (because it was not intentional).
Advantage :
it is not necessary for every offence to be penalised when no benefit is gained by the offender ; unnecessary interruptions to the flow of the match cause undue delay and irritation”.

Note this advice to umpires is written in relation to offences, not unintentional breaches of Rule.

The only other reference to gaining benefit is in relation to time-wasting.

In the absence of an offence, like deliberate time-wasting, disadvantaging opponents is part of the game, being competitive – tackling, scoring goals etc. etc.

.

“Defenders who are positioned behind their sticks intend to play the ball with their body if they miss it with the stick.
Without clear evidence of intent to use the body to play the ball i.e. of an offence, there is no reason a player should not be directly behind the stick when stopping the ball . Positioning the body behind the stick is a standard playing technique when it is not known to which side of the body the ball might be played and is not of itself evidence of intent to play the ball with the body – the assumption must be that if the player misses the ball with the stick when attempting to play it with the stick, such a miss is unintentional, and in such circumstances body position is not relevant (assuming the player is on her/his feet rather than lying or sitting or kneeling on the ground)

.

“A defender who is positioned on/in front of the goal-line when hit with the ball must be penalised with a penalty stroke”
I have heard this one trotted out at Level One umpire induction courses on several occasions but it can be true only when there has been no prior dangerous play i.e. the shot is not dangerous and the player hit has clearly and intentionally played the ball with the body rather than the stick.

Certainty that there has been a deliberate offence is required before a penalty stroke may be awarded. The withdrawal of the ‘gains benefit’ clause has, unfortunately, removed the only ground on which the accidental prevention of a goal with the body could have been penalised.

.

“A defender positioned on the goal-line causes danger”.
It is an illogical inversion of fact to suggest that the positioning of the defender is the cause of dangerous play. Such positioning can cause the play of the player propelling the ball to be dangerous but does not cause the play that is dangerous. If the ball is not propelled at (the position of) another player there can be no dangerously played ball. The distinction may seem subtle even though it isn’t, and  language can used to bamboozle those not paying attention, but one might just as well say that the ground causes rain to make it wet, as suggest that defensive positioning prior to the ball being propelled causes dangerous play or is dangerous play.

What is true is that any player who raises the ball at another player at a velocity that could cause injury to that player has endangered that player i.e. has played the ball in a way that is dangerous to others.

.

“A defender who positions on the goal-line accepts any risk of so positioning” ( Is “asking for it”).

FIH statement from the Preface to the Rules of Hockey.

Responsibility and Liability
Participants in hockey must be aware of the Rules of Hockey and of other information in this publication.
They are expected to perform according to the Rules.
Emphasis is placed on safety. Everyone involved in the game must act with consideration for the safety of others.

All players accept the risk of accidental injury but do not, and cannot be expected to, accept risks associated with any action by another participant that is a breach of the Rules.

For example Rule 13.3.1 (concerning second and subsequent shots at goal during a penalty corner – which is the same criteria as in open play) It is permitted to raise the ball to any height (while shooting at the goal) but this must not be dangerous.
Defenders do not accept the risk (and nor should they be asked or expected to) that a ball will be intentionally propelled at their position (at them) in a dangerous or reckless way. They do accept the risk of, for example, accidental deflections, rebounds and miss-hits. It is disingenuous for a shooter to claim s/he was shooting at the goal and not at the player who was, prior to the shot, positioned in front of the goal on the line of the shot or moving towards the ball on that line. The responsibility to play without endangering another player applies, as does the liability for doing so.

.

“An ‘on target’ shot at the goal cannot be dangerous play.”
This myth is (a very dangerous) invention. It seems to be based on (the unfortunate) fact that there is now no means of penalizing a shooter for reckless or dangerous play when a first shot at the goal at a penalty corner is propelled at an opponent at below knee height. Despite there being no height limit mentioned in Conduct of Play Rules, we have an exception to the possibility of ‘dangerously played ball’ just for the penalty corner shot – any defender struck with a shot which is below knee height must be, – penalised with another penalty corner, this is mandatory (so much for the subjective judgement of umpires).
I consider this an aberration because a defender will be penalised even if obviously trying to play the ball with her/his stick, and irrespective of any recklessness or intimidation on the part of the shooter, this is contrary to other Rule.

.
“Defenders have time to move out of the way of a ball that is propelled (raised) at them from more than 5m, so such a ball cannot be dangerous play.”
An invention using inverted logic. 5m is the minimum distance within which a ball raised at an opponent above knee height will be considered dangerous, not a maximum distance, beyond which dangerous play is impossible. A ball propelled at another player could be considered dangerous play at any distance on the field of play, there is no upper limit.

.

“Defenders voluntarily play the ball with the body if they had time to move out of the way of a shot, don’t do so and are hit with the ball.“
There has to be clear intent to play the ball with the body. Voluntarily means willingly. A player is not willingly hit with the ball if s/he is trying to play it with the stick or is unsighted and unaware of the path of the ball or if attempting, but not succeeding, to take evasive action. To suggest that a player who could have moved out of the path of the ball (was physically able to do so) and therefore should have done so, has committed an offence if s/he doesn’t do so, is simply assuming intent whenever a player is hit with the ball. To suggest that there is a significant difference between intentionally and voluntarily in this context is ‘playing with semantics’ in an effort to make words mean what they are wanted to mean.

Another type of willingness to be hit with the ball might arise if a benefit was to be gained by being so hit but an umpire would have to be certain of the intent before penalising, there must be evidence not just an assumption.

‘Playing’ with semantics and ‘bending over back-wards’ to penalise a player hit with the ball just encourages reckless and dangerous play from any player propelling the ball towards/through opponents and achieves the opposite of the purpose of the Rule. Umpires should not be assisting either party to circumvent Rule or the intent of the Rule – even if that might make the game more interesting or spectacular; it is not the job of an umpire to provide entertainment.

.

“Whether or not a ball propelled at a player is a dangerously played ball depends on the level of play of the players, that is on the ability or skill of the players concerned.”
This seems plausible until one considers what it is that makes any ball dangerous to any player (all players having approximately the same reactions times and all being of ‘flesh and bone’). It is the potential of the propelled ball to injure if the player is hit with it. That potential to injure and the degree of possible injury depend on the velocity of the ball and the height at which it is propelled. A player who is able to play a high ball that has been propelled at her/him has been as much endangered by that ball as a player who cannot. It is endangerment not actual injury that makes a ball dangerous.
A ball that forces self-defence (rather than the taking of evasive action) to avoid injury, would be a better description of a dangerously played ball. The distance from the defending player the ball is propelled from is relevant only inasmuch as beyond a certain distanced, depending on ball velocity, it will be possible for the player to react to the ball (if s/he is aware of its path).

What goes to the root of the problem of the dealing with the ‘dangerously played ball’, is that it is a subjective judgement by the umpire. Objective criteria such as height and distance are used in only a very limited way, velocity is not mentioned at all. The plain fact is that a ball that is raised at high velocity at any player is potentially dangerous to that player, it forces her/him to respond to avoid injury, irrespective of his ability or skill to avoid or cope with the danger presented.

.

“An out-running defender at a penalty corner who runs towards the ball is a “suicide runner”, because s/he is“running down the barrel”, and should be penalised for dangerous play.”

Unless such a defending player clearly intends to use the body and not the stick to play the ball there is no offence. Terms such as ‘suicide runner’ should never have been used in this context. The first shot at goal during a penalty corner does not have to be raised or propelled from a set position, the scenario is presented is false. It is as if an out-runner were running into the path of a projectile, compulsorily fired, on a short fuse, from a static gun position – the truth is the shooter has choices and should not choose to endanger an opponent who is closing on the ball.

.

“A defender who closes on the ball when it is in the possession of an attacker who is taking a shot at the goal (or is about to) is guilty of dangerous play.”

Unless such a defending player is clearly intends to use the body and not the stick to play the ball, s/he has not committed an offence. A defender is entitled to defend and that includes closing on the ball and attempting to block the shot with the stick or tackle for the ball.

.

The relevant Rules.

9.8 Players must not play the ball dangerously or in a way which leads to dangerous play.
A ball is considered dangerous when it causes legitimate evasive action by players.

9.9 Players must not intentionally raise the ball from a hit except for a shot at goal.
Players are permitted to raise the ball with a flick or scoop provided it is not dangerous. A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous.
If an opponent is clearly running into the shot or into the attacker without attempting to play the ball with their stick, they should be penalised for dangerous play.

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

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

13.3. l. For second and subsequent hits at the goal and for flicks, deflections and scoops, it is permitted to raise the ball to any height but this must not be dangerous.
A defender who is clearly running into the shot or into the taker without attempting to play the ball with their stick must be penalised for dangerous play.

Otherwise,(that is if the defender is not attempting to play at the ball with their stick) if a defender is within five metres of the first shot at goal during the taking of a penalty corner and is struck by the ball below the knee, another penalty corner must be awarded or is struck on or above the knee in a normal stance, the shot is judged to be dangerous and a free hit must be awarded to the defending team.

The definition of a dangerously played ball is that it is “a ball that causes legitimate evasive action”. That statement alone should have been sufficient to prevent the creation of several myths, but it tells us only (and only in part) what a dangerously played ball is, not what other actions could constitute dangerous play, or even what ‘legitimate’ means (does it mean legal or genuine?) or what could possibly make any evasive action taken to avoid injury not legitimate.

These omissions have provided scope for ‘interpretation’ that have led to to various conclusions and this has been taken full advantage of. Why anyone would want to take such advantage to invert a previously accepted meaning of ‘dangerously played’ and even to remove the concept of the dangerously played ball from the game in certain circumstances, generally when what might be considered dangerous play is a shot at the goal, is outside the scope of this article.

The existence of the term ‘legitimate evasive action’ lends credence to the argument that evasive action can be legitimate in both meanings of the word i.e. necessary (or genuine) and also legal (or within the Rules).

Evasive action is not necessary, or indeed even a possibility, if a defending player is not positioned in the path of a ball that has been propelled by another player, such evasive action defines and is caused and is legitimized, by a dangerously played ball.

Being positioned in the defended goal or anywhere else (except the opponents’ goal) must be therefore be legal i.e. legitimate play, because otherwise no evasive action could ever be be legitimate and the term would not be used. Whether or not evasive action is legitimate i.e. necessary or genuine is a matter of umpire judgement, but it is also a player judgement, depending entirely on circumstances a player finds herself/ himself in. When the ball is raised high at a player at high velocity (and we here talking of a ball propelled at anything from 60 -100 mph), from within 14m, is difficult to see how an umpire could declare evasive action as unnecessary by any player at any level. (‘High’, in terms of height, could usefully be defined as an objective criteria).

It is not illegal for a defender to defend the goal either by staying in the goal on the goal-line or in front of the goal-line, nor is illegal for a defender to close down on an attacker about to shoot to try to intercept the ball with the stick or tackle for the ball with the stick, the goal could not be defended if a defender was not allowed to be in or to defend in the area between a shooter and the goal.

Legitimate evasive action is not in fact a sufficient description of a dangerously played ball when the ball is propelled at another player in a way that could endanger them, because evasive action is not always successful and because defenders may also be endangered when they have not taken or even attempted to take evasive action, either because they were physically unable to do so (lack of time to react) or because they were unaware that evasive action might be necessary. Either could be the case if a defending player was unsighted at the time the ball was propelled in their direction. It is also more than possible (very likely) that an umpire would not know if a defending player was unsighted when the ball was propelled in their direction.

I know it ‘sucks’ but the fact that it is against the Rules to propel the ball at another player in a way that endangers them, makes it much more difficult to score a goal than it would otherwise be. And playing the ball at or into the legs or feet of an opponent is not a legitimate way to ‘win’ a free or a penalty corner – in fact penalties against opponents are not (or should not be) ‘won’ (‘manufactured’) intentionally at all – passing and dribbling skills have to be developed and then used in a legitimate way.
.
Link to Index of Rules  http://wp.me/p3tNmd-3

Field Hockey Rules: Dangerous Shot on Goal

Edited 7th February 2013

A reply.

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.

 http://www.fieldhockeyforum.com/threads/ball-in-the-face-aus-vs-eng-trophy-final.10754/

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.

Later article at   http://wp.me/pKOEk-PB

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

.

Field Hockey Rules: Contradictions and conflicts

Revised   27th September, 2012

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 metres outside 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 a Rule 13.1.3d A player shall not raise the ball at another player extant 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 penalised unless 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. 
.

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

Field Hockey Rules: Direct Lift from Free ball

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.
.

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

Field Hockey Rules: The Intentionally Lifted hit

Amended 3rd February 2013

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 not be 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 velocity at 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:  

http://wp.me/pKOEk-LX  is the introduction of a different size goal.

PENALTY CORNER Additions

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).
.

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