Conforming to laws or rules or to accepted or established principles or standards.
Valid – able to be defended with logic or justification as necessary.
Genuine
Legitimate evasive action.
An action taken to evade the ball which is necessary to avoid the possibility of being injured by it.
A dangerously played ball is a ball propelled by one player in a way that gives cause for legitimate evasive action by another player. As always it is necessary to give the relevant Rule.
.
9.8 Players must not play the ball dangerously or in a way which leads to dangerous play.
A ball is considered dangerous when it causes legitimate evasive action by players.
9.9 Players must not intentionally raise the ball from a hit except for a shot at goal.
Players are permitted to raise the ball with a flick or scoop provided it is not dangerous. A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous.
If an opponent is clearly running into the shot or into the attacker without attempting to play the ball with their stick, they should be penalised for dangerous play.
.
The above Rules are all that are given in the Rules of Hockey concerning the dangerous playing of the ball in open play.
The Penalty Corner Rules 13.3. further limit A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous by declaring that any stroke that raises the ball and strikes an opponent who is within 5m, on or above the knee is to be penalised as dangerous play.
And, in addition to the height restriction of 460mm on a first hit shot at the goal
13.3.l for second and subsequent hits at the goal and for flicks, deflections and scoops, it is permitted to raise the ball to any height but this must not be dangerous.
Interpretation.
The syntax is poor but above Rule Guidance 13.3.l. obviously must, as it clearly states, relate to second and subsequent hits at the goal (the first being specifically restricted), and to all flicks, deflections and scoops be they first shots at the goal or subsequent shots at the goal. To permit a first flick shot to be exempt from the Rule governing dangerous play, but to apply the Rule to any subsequent flick-shot would not be logical, especially when the first hit-shot at the goal is severely height restricted and the different styles of shot travel at similar velocity
In any phase of play, open or penalty, any ball that is raised at a player, may be judged by the umpire to have caused legitimate evasive action and therefore to be dangerous play. Raised to what height? The Umpire Manager’s Briefing for Umpires declares: Low balls over defenders sticks in a controlled manner that hit half shin-pad are not dangerous. It follows that any ball raised at a player (especially with a wild or uncontrolled stroke) to above half shin-pad height (approximately 30cms?) may, in any umpire’s judgement, be considered in a particular circumstance, for example, from close range, to have been dangerous play.
A ball raised at a player at any height above knee height may be considered by an umpire to have been dangerously propelled – to have caused legitimate evasive action -even at 10m or 15m from the player endangered, in fact at any distance; there is no limiting distance given in the Rules of Hockey. This makes sense when it is realized that a ball with a velocity of 100 kph (not an unusual speed for a drag flick at the goal or a ball ‘accidentally’ hit across the goal in the circle) will travel approximately 27.78 meters in one second, and players are generally unable to respond effectively to the path of such a ball – once it has been located and is being tracked – in less than 0.5 secs. i.e. players may be unable to defend themselves.
So much for the Rules of Hockey, now to turn to ‘practice’.
This post was the opener for a thread on a hockey related website about the ‘gap’ between the written Rules, the Rule Guidance embedded in them, and Rule application.
UmpireHockey.com. The photos below from the USA v Belgium 11~12 consolation game in which #20 USA scores a goal, putting the ball past the shoulder of a Belgium player #5.
(Rule 9.8 and Rule 9.9 and the embedded Guidance with each – which I have posted above – were then set out).
I’ve always taken that to mean that if the ball is flicked, scooped, OR HIT towards an opponent within 5m it is considered dangerous.
Of course, I’ve also always considered that a player can’t always protect themselves from danger with legitimate evasive action—and that that is part of my job. In fact, I’ve always thought that legitimate evasive action was there so we wouldn’t turn into soccer/football having people trying to win Golden Globes and Academy Awards by faking that they were endangered.
And, finally, I’m predicting that we’ll have some (like this particular umpire has done) say that all things go with shots on goal. To which I say, we agree therefore that there is gap between what’s in the rule book, including the embedded guidance, and the briefing and what we understand to be the current practice. And, of course, what would the call have been if this had happened at the midfield line, consistency anyone?
Aren’t these gaps worth closing?
(I have replaced the photo stills with video – which was available on-line at the time of these posts, so available to be seen by the contributors, but could not be downloaded to the web-site at that time. The video also contains another goalmouth incident and decision by the same umpire, which is interesting in the context of the discussion)
The subsequent argument carried on over seven pages of posts. I have selected just two of the contributors, Nij and Keely, both of a view opposite to my own. I believe these two say in their posts (despite the evasions, gobbledygook and contradictions, which make it difficult to know just what it is they are suggesting is Rule) all that needs to be said to justify the abandonment of the subjective judgement of legitimate evasive action as a criteria for a dangerously played ball and the institution of objective criterion in its place.
Nij.
Deegum said: There has never, to my know/edge been anything in the rules to suggest that outfield players defending the goal are endangering themselves{unless they move Into the path of a shot
Except for the large number of times, surely, that others have told you why this is.
A person who chooses to stand in a place where they know the ball can be lifted into, without making any attempt to prevent themselves being hit, is placing themselves in danger. And to that, I would also add: what moron defender is trying to stop the shot directly? This is the goalkeeper’s job; the defender should be stopping the shot from being able to happen in the first place, not hoping to get a FHD from someone who doesn’t umpire the same way as 99% of all others (including at the highest levels).
Nij.
Deegum said: umpires adhering to ‘current practice’ in this area, may find themselves having failed in their duty of care to protect players from unnecessary and avoidable danger
[mod edit: unnecessary expletive deleted] ‘
The player who chooses to stand on that line, knowing the ball can and will be raised occasionally, is doing everything possible to create danger short of actively raising the ball at players themselves. No umpire regardless of their level, can prevent a player from being stupid before they act stupidly if the stupid player in question has made up their minds to do so already.
Neither I nor any other umpire who follows the current and F1H preferred interpretation can be blamed for what happens. You’re right that the danger is unnecessary and avoidable: you are entirely wrong on who is most responsible for allowing it to happen, and on who is most able to prevent it.
You say that attackers should learn to shoot at spaces or gaps. 1 say that defenders should learn how to bloody defend: you are there to tackle or intercept. Let your goalkeeper do their damn job and stop the shots, that’s why they are wearing pads, not you.
“but, Judge, It is current practice to allow this” would not, I’d guess, carry much weight in a US injury damages case .
A person who chooses to play a sport, e.g. field hockey knowing that there is a risk of injury does so of their own accord. Those who officiate the match cannot be blamed for it happening, when they have done what is reasonable, when the player has done something unreasonable.
Diligent likes this.
Nij
Kilmory said:But is this ignoring the fact that the lilted shot, flick or scoop towards goal is allowed – unless it is dangerous? I would counter that the defender, standing in a set position, can reasonably expect the ball to be played to miss them. if they believed the rules as written they would know that the ball cannot be raised into them.
The ball is being raised into the goal. A defender should be quite able to stand outside the line of the goal, and use their stick to play at the ball
And finally,the person most able to prevent the danger is the person who has control of the ball.
Except they are not the only person able to prevent the danger.
If the defender tries to play an aerial past an attacker from a FHD, with the attacker jumping into the shot instead of standing low and using their stick to block it, then who has made it dangerous? The player raising the ball has every right to do so, where their opponent could have easily prevented any danger from occurring and played the ball.
The same applies to the shot at goal. The defender could have stood outside the line of the goal, and used their stick (at any height, I also note) to stop or deflect the ball. More, they could have instead allowed the goalkeeper to stand inside the line of the goal, and gone to make a tackle or intercept that prevents the attacker being able to shoot in the first place.
Basically, It comes down to what you believe the phrase ‘position themselves with the intention’ means. I would say it means moves into the path of a ball which has already been struck, YOU obviously feel It means standing still in a legitimate part of the pitch.
Position themselves with the intention of standing where they know the ball can and will be raised, whilst having other options (options which should make far more sense for any player who wants to both not get hurt and help defend the goal).
Knowing that they have a goalkeeper who can stand there and who has practised stopping shots; who is wearing a large amount of padding; which the defender themselves is certainly not. Knowing they could simply take a step or two to the left and still be able to play the ball (or, and is this such a contentious idea? Go and tackle the shooter, or stop them from shooting in the first place). Knowing that the ball can, and often will be raised into the goal.
They know all of that, and they have chosen to stand in the line of the goal. They have done everything they possibly could to make it dangerous to themselves, and neither I nor the majority of umpires will penalise the attacker for it.
I have heard it used even if the rule contradicts it (e.g. defender hit above knee from a PC inside 5m).
If a rule is being directly contradicted, by saying that a player within 5 metres hit above the knee by a (drag) flick at a PC and being told it’s a shot at goal so not dangerous, then that’s not an issue of the current practise being wrong by the rules, it’s a case of an umpire applying the wrong rules to a situation and making the wrong call.
Nij
Justin said: I hope that no-one is suggesting that, because no one was injured on the goal-line (in the the Ogs), that therefore there were no dangerous shots .
The definition says that if LEA is taken, then it’s dangerous …….and I’m sure we all saw players taking LEA on the goal-lines (I certainly did)
I would say that In fact. It’s not legitimate evasive action: to move yourself into the shot first, and then out of it again when you decide that “actually, I’d rather not be hit today..”. It might be dangerous in the non-rule-definition sense, but that’s caused by the defender standing somewhere silly, as carefully explained above.
Keely
UmpireHockey said: Hmm. I think we could charge the Olympian to be skilful enough to place the ball into a position that no one would consider dangerous. If she’s all that good to narrowly miss a player’s upper body/head, she should be just as skillful to play the ball down below the defender’s knees where there was even more open space into the goal. This shot caused the defender, who is allowed to take up any position on the field, to take legitimate evasive action from a shot that was taken from less than 2 meters away—let alone being less that 5 meters. I believe that’s how danger is defined in the book, right? So, why would the current practice differ? Why would there be a gap?
You want a shot that “no one would consider dangerous”? I’m telling you that no one at that level considers that example dangerous. The attacker has a GK on the ground who can possibly block a low shot, and a second defender reaching her stick out to block – that’s right – the low shot. In order to score, she must raise the ball high into a net that stands at 2.14m. She has only a narrow gap between the space taken by the defending player who cannot by the rules of the game use her body to stop the ball and the side post, and she aims for that gap- The defender may or may not have taken evasive action, but the key word is ‘legitimate’ – and at that level, it is not legitimate to stand blocking the net with one’s body and then duck and claim danger when the ball is put past you.
So that’s the big secret, 1 guess: the word legitimate.
It would not be legitimate to stack five field players across the goal, standing on the goal line, and then claim that any shot that is raised over knee height or hit at high velocity lower than that in an effort to score is dangerous. This would be the natural result of any objective codification of danger in the way that you are lobbying for.
Again, the gap is not within the rules, which are written with subjectivity in mind so that every level of the game can be umpired property and consistency within that level, but in what you believe should be called and what was actually called.
Justin said:It would be interesting to hear, from an international umpire, some examples of what the elite corps DOES regard as ‘dangerous play’, and preferably a definition
Just to say It Is a subjective judgement means that every umpire will have his/her own personal criteria regarding what they will or will not penalise. It also means that I’d be just as correct in blowing FHD for a player hit on the head, as someone else who’d give a PS …both subjectively deciding that it was or was not dangerous. Of course, the UM (with his own criteria) might not agree! Not an ideal recipe for consistency…we must surely be able to do better than that?
You’ve been far less than interested in hearing from me, Justin, and the example I already gave above so I guess you mean other international umpires (maybe males?). If I presented you with a definition, you’d say it’s not in the rule book so it can’t possibly be binding on anyone else.
Strangely enough, it seems that at the highest levels we still are very consistent, regardless of how little you think of the recipe.
UmpireHockey.com said:We say, “We’re a litigious society.” We are held to a higher standard, and we–in turn – have a higher expectation of items like written documents. The written documents in hockey are the rule book and the briefing, The FIRST place the lawyers are going to look is in the rule book. To defend yourself if the book won’t, we’d get to use the briefing, we would NOT get to use the ‘current practice’ . Uh, I mean we would use it but then …the laughing would begin.
I would encourage you and any other contributor who is NOT a lawyer to hesitate in expressing opinions on the pertinent legal principles and how potential litigation may or may not proceed.
Nij
deegum said: Nij“when the player has done something unreasonable”
Such as standing in the most advantageous place to intercept the ball – in a manner that has been accepted for what ? 70 years? Without any relevant change of rule, it becomes an intent to commit an offence?
The goal-line is definitely not the most advantageous place to intercept the ball.
Unless you’re better at stopping a 100+ kmh shot which could be anywhere in a 7 square metre area using an object with perhaps one one-hundred-fiftieth that size, than placing your stick in front of a
stationary/slow-moving ball which is in a very specific place in such a way that has a much better chance of stopping the ball than not stopping it, then saying that the goalmouth is the best place to stop the shot from, is just plain absurd.
EDIT: ask any goalkeeper who knows what they’re doing, even, when somebody is going to get a free chance to shoot, unmarked coming into the circle, what’s the first thing you do? Cut down the angle.
You don’t stand back and let them bash it towards the goal, then hope you can react fast enough. You get your body and pads out in front of the ball and stop the shot from getting anywhere near the goal in the first place.
If the plan of somebody who can use anything they like, with much more protection and much greater blocking area, is to get right up in front of the shot, then why in any blazing hell would a defender think they’ve got a better chance of stopping it from on the line!?
Nij
UmpireHockey.com said: If a player on the goat-fine is in an illegitimate position then when they make an amazing stick save of a shot that would otherwise cross the goal-line, one could argue for the award of a penalty stroke because the player has illegally stopped the ball from crossing the goal-line.
I don’t know that I’ve seen such a well-crafted strawperson before. I’m sure that Burning Man Project might be interested in your technique.
It’s not an offence to stand on the line and play the ball legally. It is an offence to stand on the line and play the ball illegally.
Is this such a complicated thing to understand, without trying to make it sound anything like it isn’t?
Keely
Justin said: (following an analogy from base-ball posted by Keely) OK, but what happens when the pitcher lets off a wild one (accidentally or not) which hits the batter, standing Quite legally where he should be?
Then the batter gets a free pass to first base (automatic walk) as a penalty. If he does it in a manner the umpire deems intentional, the pitcher gets thrown out of the game.
Justin said; I s’pose you’d say that would be like a DFer hitting a player standing OUTside the post? And, if the batter stood ON the plate he’d be ‘fair game’? although of course he wouldn’t…apart from the risk, he couldn’t hit a fair pitch from there-!
Exactly. Because unless you have privileges granted by the rules that allow you to use your body to block the ball and the necessary equipment to protect yourself against injury from fulfilling that designated role in the game, you shouldn’t be there. If you make that choice, it’s your risk. If you’re successful in legally saving the ball, great. But you also bear the flip side.
Justin said: But it seems crazy/illogical that just outside the post it’s regarded as dangerous, but just inside it’s allegedly legal to hit a defender!
Crazy or illogical to you and a tiny minority over-represented in FHF discussions, but completely expected and logical to me and the immense majority of hockey and sporting people. And this here is the real crux of the argument.
Nij
Deegum said: Could you tell me how a defender could reliably demonstrate their intention NOT to use their body as a back up- for I can assure you that many defenders do not so intend?
By not placing their body in the line of any shot which is going into the goal. This has been said so many times now, I do begin to think you’re deliberately ignoring the responses given to you and the explanations thereof.
Deegum said:Seems pretty stupid to me to use the body under the present ‘interpretation’ when a PS, i.e. a near certain goal, and a possibly injured star player, result.
Seems pretty stupid to me too, which is why I’ve described such players often as complete morons, but hey: that’s what they’re doing. They know what will happen as a result of their actions, and they do it anyway. Pretending otherwise would be just be silly. Unless you want to portray this as some kind of horrible monster attacker raising the ball at the innocent heroic defender story, of course, which would be naive at best.
They want the benefit of being able to stand there when they succeed in saving a goal with their stick, they’ll get the penalty applied for failing by preventing a goal with their body. They know this. The umpires know it. Everybody is on the same page in this situation, except for those lone stalwart Guardians Of The Old Way Of Doing Things.
Deegum said:So the meaning of English has changed?
Yes, it being a live language, which has words added or altered every single day as their common interpretation becomes different according to the way it is used and understood. Unlike for example Latin, which is unchanging and thus considered dead, in linguistic terminology.
Nij
Deegum said: Could you tell me how a defender could reliably demonstrate their intention NOT to use their body as a back up.
Funny, I could have sworn someone answered this.
By not placing their body in the line of any shot which is going into the goal.
*************************
So there we are, two umpires who are convinced that a defender has no business defending the goal on a line between a shooter and the goal, and if a defender does so position they do so with the intention of using the body to play the ball and should be penalised if hit with the ball, irrespective of any evasive action, attempt to play the ball with their stick or any action of the shooter. Moreover this is the view of anyone who is not a stupid moron and of the immense majority of hockey and sporting people – opinion but no reason offered, no definitions and nothing from the Rules of Hockey or (clutching at straws) even the Umpire Manager’s Briefing for Umpires.
It is clear that the ball is not hit at the defender but it is hit up and across her and the lean back she makes to ensure the ball does not hit her is I think justified. The shot is certainly intimidating (an offence) and wild/reckless (an offence) as it could just as easily have been hit into the goal at the near post and along the ground. It is certainly the sort of play that ought to be discouraged because it is potentially lethal.
.
In the second half of the game the Belgium team attacking the same goal were awarded a penalty corner for dangerous play by the American goalkeeper. The ball deflected off the goalkeeper’s pads rising to about a meter beyond a Belgium attacker who was on her knees and reaching or diving to play at a cross-ball. The ball was less than a meter off the ground as it passed by the attacker; it was not propelled across her and it was not at her – yet the umpire penalised the goalkeeper. If that deflection off the goalkeeper was dangerous play so was the shot made past the defender in the first half. So what is going on? Where is the consistency Keely referred to?
.
There is one clue. That umpire is the same one who announced to a Spanish defender, who was hit on the thigh with a raised edge-hit while defending the goal in a match against China during the 2010 World Cup, that a shot made at the goal cannot be dangerous (which is an abandonment of the subjective judgement of shots – if they can’t be dangerous no judgement need be made). But, to grasp at another straw, in the Rules concerning penalties we are given:
.
13.3.l for second and subsequent hits at the goal and for flicks, deflections and scoops, it is permitted to raise the ball to any height but this must not be dangerous.
.
So a raised shot at the goal can be considered to be dangerous play when made during a penalty corner – otherwise there would be no need of the admonishment “but this must not be dangerous” – I don’t think it stretching the Rules of Hockey too much to suggest that a raised shot at goal made in open play can also be considered dangerous if an opponent is endangered by it. The proponents of the idea that defenders are to blame if they are endangered when defending the goal offer as the crux of their argument only that there are a lot of people who think the same way they do (well they would say that wouldn’t they).
.
This nonsense goes back to an invention derived from the writing of a FIH Technical Delegate, John Gawley, in an umpire coaching paper in 2001 (just after Keely began umpiring). He wrote that a field player defending the goal arrogated to himself the duties of a goalkeeper (but without the privileges of a goalkeeper) and could be shot at as if he were a fully equipped goalkeeper – unless that endangers him. He also wrote, in the same document, that a shooter had to shoot at the goal and not at a defender positioned between the goal and himself. He began the document by stating that no player should ever raise the ball at another player be it at 15 cms of 50 cms and repeated that sentiment with conclusion that no player should EVER force another player to self-defence.
Nij and Keely opt for an amended version of one extreme – that a field player between a shooter and the goal can be shot at as if a fully equipped goalkeeper – the unless that endangers him dropped from the statement – not quite pure invention, but a horrible distortion of what Gawley so naively wrote. Gawley’s publication remains the only umpire coaching document ever written about the lifted ball. A copy of it can be found in this article: – http://wp.me/pKOEk-ki
A pattern of deductive reasoning consisting of two premises and a conclusion – which may be valid or invalid, depending on what conclusion is arrived at by the reasoning of the person giving the conclusion.
Example.
Premise one. All men are mortal.
Premise two. Socrates is a man.
Conclusion. Socrates is mortal.
The premises are offered as true, so the above conclusion could be challenged by a pedant on the grounds that the evidence that Socrates is a man is subjective and unproven even if Socrates asserts ‘himself’ that ‘he’ is a man and this ‘fact’ is by agreed by common consent. This moves the ‘debate’ from one about mortality to another, possibly more ambiguous area, a definition of gender. However in this case the conclusion is not that Socrates is a man – that is given as a premise – but that Socrates is mortal, and that is not in dispute. The syllogism is more accurately set up by replacing the word ‘men’ and ‘man’ in the premises with ‘human being/s’.
Premise one. All human beings are mortal.
Premise two. Socrates is a human being.
Conclusion. Socrates is mortal.
Such adjustments to wording can, if used carefully, point the way to unambiguous and logical rule statements
The problem I invented arose because, in the first premise, ‘men’ may be seen to have been used as a generic term, to denote all human beings (as in mankind), and an ambiguity is created when, in the second premise, ‘man’ appears to be gender specific i.e. to exclude women. Rational people know that women are not immortal either and may also know that the term ‘men’ may have been used in a way that includes ‘women’. (the practice is not unusual in documentation to achieve brevity and clarity; until 2004 the Rules of Hockey used ‘he’ and ‘his’ to also mean ‘she’ and ‘her’) in other words premises that are not stated but are ‘known’ need to be taken into consideration unless this is specifically forbidden. It is often useful to exclude the general ’common sense’ of a premise to achieve a communal sense of the true meaning i.e. agreement and consistency in interpretation using only what is given in text. Only a given premise wording is then initially considered. Additional facts (words) that can be seen by ‘common sense’ to be missing are, in this way, more likely to be noted as missing and included (or at least discussed before) subsequently constructed premises are finalised.
A syllogism can therefore be challenged – said to be invalid- by disputing either of the premises or, if it does not appear to be a logical deduction from accepted premises, the conclusion. In the usual course of conversation or even of writing, the syllogism with which I began the article would not be remarked upon – I got it as the example given in a dictionary definition of a syllogism – but it was possible to make a criticism of it. The syllogism given in the Oxford English Dictionary, with the definition of the word, is much more open to dispute, but that is pointed out in the OED entry with which I began this article, syllogisms may be valid or invalid. E.g:-
All dogs are animals
All animals have four legs
Therefore all dogs have four legs.
The conclusion would not be disputed by any reasonable person (who knew what a dog was) but the second premise certainly could be – dolphins and apes are but two examples of species of animal that do not have four legs. The conclusion does not follow from the premise ”Some animals have four legs” and the conclusion “Some dogs have four legs” is obviously incorrect. Presenting one true and one false premise together with an obviously true conclusion is a ‘technique’ often used to get a very dubious premise ‘accepted’. The weak premise is ‘accepted’ without much thought because the other statements are so obviously correct.
The point I am making is that the given premises, as well as the ‘deducted’ conclusion, need to be critically examined when someone is trying to ‘prove’ a point by using a syllogism – or , beyond that, using the conclusions of two syllogisms as the premises of a third…. and so on. Obviously where ‘proofs’ are being demonstrated statements that are known to be fallacious should not be accepted as premises (or accepted only as a way of disproving). The finding of flaws in premises need not be taken to the point where further criticism of the semantics or syntax would be absolutely impossible, but obvious contradictions of terms, potential ambiguities in wording, etc. should be pointed out and clarified or corrected when reasonable conclusions are looked for.
The Socrates syllogism has reasonable premises and conclusion and perhaps only a pedant would call it invalid, the one about dogs is clearly an invalid syllogism from the given premises, even if all dogs are animals and all normal dogs have four legs, because the second of the two premises cannot by itself , due to known fallacy, lead to the given conclusion and for the same reason does not assist its partner to do so.
Discussions concerning the Rules of Hockey contain many assertions and conclusions which are seemingly (or at first sight) based on deductive reasoning, but are invalid because one or more of the premises offered are fallacious or ambiguous (open to misinterpretation and therefore to misapplication), or the conclusions are not logical (rational) deductions if one or both the premises are accepted as true.
The topic. Voluntarily making body contact with the ball.
In 2004 the HRB (FIH Rules Committee) changed the Rule Guidance embedded in the ball body contact Rule from :-
13.1.2 Use of body, hands, feet by players other than goal-keepers
Players shall not:-
a. stop or catch the ball with the hand
There is nothing to prevent players using their hands to protect themselves from dangerously raised balls.
b. intentionally stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their bodies
It is not automatically an offence if the ball hits the foot or body of a player. On many occasions when a ball hits the foot or body of a player an offence will not have taken place and play should continue.
It is only an offence if the ball hits the foot or body of a player and that player:
• moved intentionally into the path of the ball, or
• made no effort to avoid being hit, or
• was positioned with the clear intention to stop the ball with the foot or body, or
• gains benefit.
To this
9.10 Field players must not stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their body.
It is not an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player, unless that player or their team benefits from this.
No offence is committed if the ball hits the hand holding the stick but would otherwise have hit the stick.
removing the word ‘intentionally’ from the Rule.
Then in 2007 the word ‘voluntarily’ was added to the Rule Guidance and ‘gains benefit’ was removed. (*) Which gives the current (2013) Rule.
9.11 Field players must not stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their body.
It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player. The player
only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball or if they
position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way.
It is not an offence if the ball hits the hand holding the stick but would otherwise have hit the stick.
It was not revealed why ‘intentionally’ was dropped from the Rule or why a few years later ‘voluntarily’ was added to the Rule Guidance. Perhaps it was because dropping ‘intentionally’ completely was later considered to have been too big a step or a mistake and ‘voluntarily’ was thought a suitable synonym to replace it without loss of ‘face’. Who knows? But there was a problem; umpires had quickly, post 2004, become accustomed to penalising any and all ball/body contact (some had always done so because the fact of such contact is a very easy objective criteria, it requires observation but little judgement) and they were reluctant to go back to the difficulty and uncertainty of looking for intention or voluntary contact.
(*) Three weeks after the activation date of the 2007- 09 Rules of Hockey a ‘note’ was posted on the FIH website which announce that ‘gains benefit’ would continue to apply as it had in 2006, so ‘gains benefit’ was not in effect deleted until January 2009 i.e. on issue of the 2009-11 Rules of Hockey sans ‘gained benefit’ or any substitute for it. ‘Gains benefit’ was not restored in 2011-13 and has not been restored to the current Rules 2013 – 15.
The Discussion
Debate about the meaning of ‘voluntarily’ resulted in the opinions below – expressed over two separate threads, made six months apart, on a hockey related website – from an International level umpire, who uses the tag Bondy. Aside from the opening post I have reproduced only the posts that Bondy put up – most of them contain quotes in italics from other contributors which help a little to hang them together.
The first thread, from November 2011, was entitled Incidental foot.
JMZevans (The opening post)
I have scanned through the forum for some clarity on an old classic but would like to confirm a decision from the weekend. Situation as follows:
Attacker driving along the baseline and hits the ball towards the top of the D. Near the top it hits a defenders foot. Had the defender missed it then the ball would have travelled uninterrupted all the way to the sideline. Attackers shout for a PC, defenders shout that the ball would have gone off and would have been their side line ball.
Which is the correct decision??
.
Bondy
redumpire said: I assumed the ball hadn’t gone off the sideline and was still with the defender whose foot it had hit, in which case it’s play on…
Surely this would be a PC? It hit the defender’s foot, and he gained possession because of it. I know that he would have had the sideline hit, had it not hit his foot – but in the time that it takes for the ball to get to the sideline and for the defender to set up to take the hit, the attackers would have had the opportunity to set up their press. To me, that means that the defender has gained advantage from the foot in the circle, therefore you’ve got no option but to award a PC.
.
Bondy
redumpire said: Fair point, Bondy; let’s put it another way. If the ball hit a player’s foot somewhere near the middle of the pitch as the ball was on a trajectory to go over the sideline and that player was in acres of space, would you award a FH? I wouldn’t; so why would I award a PC?
I completely agree that if you wouldn’t award a FH in midfield, you shouldn’t award a PC, but I believe that it has to be a FH. The defender is advantaged by getting the ball ‘right now’ in central field position, instead of getting a sideline hit in a few seconds, which would give the opposition time to set up a defensive press.
deegum said: Sorry alex, but Justin has said, there has been no offence at all. Therefore no FHA, PC, PS or anything. In fact the defence might sometimes gain an advantage,, but play on, still no offence.
I honestly don’t see how there’s no offence here – am I missing something that everyone else is thinking? The defender has stopped the ball with his foot, and in doing so, has gained an advantage (and therefore disadvantaged the opposition). Offence by the defender. It happens to be in the circle, so it’s a PC.
To those who say that the defender hasn’t ‘voluntarily’ stopped the ball with his foot, he’s at least 15m from where the ball was hit, and one would assume he’s watching the ball. Therefore he’s had plenty of time to get out of the way, or use his stick to trap it… and because he’s chosen to do neither, it’s a voluntary (subtle difference from ‘intentional’) use of the foot. I know it’s a horrible soft PC, but I honestly think that you have to give it.
.
Bondy
redumpire said: We’ft have to have a good pre-match chat if ever we umpire together,,, or, you’l! have to change your views if you’re ever umpiring when I’m TD !!
I think we should just hope that the defenders know how to trap!!
Incidentally – Diligent, I’m right with you that if the ball HAD gone out, it’s definitely a sideline hit attack, because hitting the foot has led to the defender losing possession. I don’t believe that there’s any legitimate argument for PC in that situation… as opposed to when it stays in, there are two valid schools of thought (ie, PC or play on) – I’ll argue black and blue that it needs to be a PC, but those who argue play on have also got a valid argument (just slightly less valid, IMHO)
.
Bondy
Hacker said: Bondy, does your decision after if the “foot” happens at the top of the D with no attackers dose {as Diligent says above) or if it’s closer to the goaf line and attackers a bit nearer?
No – because of the foot, the defender gets possession in space and therefore the ability to start a counter-attack, and easily attack down the centre or either side of the field. If it hadn’t hit the foot, they’ve still got possession, but it’s at the sideline, which means that the attackers have extra time to set a press and pressure the defence.
.
The following July there was a discussion about the correct decision if the ball was deliberately played into contact with an opponent and the meaning of the word ‘voluntarily’ was raised again. Bondy had become more extreme in his view and also more certain that he was right to penalise any ball/body contact (unless opponents could play on with advantage - were not disadvantaged ) in spite of the fact that the discussion was about contacts intentionally forced (*) by opponents and ‘gained benefit’ or ‘gained advantage’, which he quotes, had finally ‘disappeared’ from the Rules of Hockey more than three years earlier.
(*) After January 2011 forcing an opponent into a breach of Rule was deleted as an offence in itself.
.
Bondy
I believe that Justin, et al, are confusing “voluntary” and “involuntary” with “unintentional” and “intentional”. To my mind, a foot becomes “voluntary” when a player puts himself in a position where there is the potential that they will play the ball with the foot, ie – a defender comes to tackle an attacker, and ends up stopping the ball with his foot. He hasn’t intentionally done it, but because he’s put himself into position knowing there’s a chance he’ll kick it, it’s voluntary and therefore a free hit attack.
Saying “Well, I tried to stop it hitting my foot because I tried to use my stick to make the tackle/trap/dribble/whatever” doesn’t make it involuntary – you’ve still put yourself in a position where there’s a reasonable chance of the ball hitting you – it’s unintentional, but it’s not involuntary. Frankly, any other interpretation is a fundamental change to the game, and goes against the whole principle that hockey stick and ball game.
I do agree that there’s a reasonable argument that the “find a foot” incidents are being blown incorrectly… but I also think that everyone expects it to be blown that way, and as far as I’m concerned, until a specific directive from FIH that the way it’s being blown is wrong (and the removal of manufactured fouls is a pretty strong indication that that’s not gonna happen any time soon), I’m going to keep givin what everyone’s happy with and not play-ons that everyone thinks are wrong.
From those five posts it is possible to construct a large number of pairs of related premises to construct syllogisms and reach conclusions. The problem will be consistency, because many of the statements Bondy makes are contradicted by others. Even the meaning of ‘everybody’ has changed significantly between first mention and last.
Using directly conflicting pairs is not entirely pointless as it is as useful to know what is not valid as what is. but premises that are different but supportive of each other (or at least not opposed) will also have to be found. The premises and conclusions from opinion and ‘practice’ (player expectation etc.) can then be paired with related phrase statements from the Rules of Hockey. First it is necessary to list individual premises from the statements he made.
That could take a week. It’s an exercise a reader might like to try for themselves. A start could be made by determination of the meaning of the word ‘voluntarily’ in the context of the Rule Guidance, weighed against the asserted ’acceptance of risk’ and the imposition of penalty (How does one justify penalty as a deterrent when the penalised action has been forced?) .
An aside. It needs to be borne in mind that the ball/body contact Rule relates to all ball/body contact, not just to ball contact made with the feet. When assessing ‘acceptance of risk’ and ‘voluntarily’ one has to be aware of the possibility of the sort of incident shown in the video. The defender ’knew’ as he ran towards the ball, that it was possible that the player in possession of the ball would propel it towards his head: would it therefore be reasonable for the umpire to penalise the player hit? Bondy “To my mind, a foot becomes “voluntary” when a player puts himself in a position where there is the potential that they will play the ball with the foot“. Is that reasonable? Is being hit with the ball ‘playing it’ if the contact is not intentional?
What is different about the actions of a defender running towards a player in possession of the ball when the defender is hit by the propelled ball on the head or upper body rather than on the foot? The answer is likely to be “Nothing”, the difference is in the action of the player propelling the ball – he raises it. When is responsibility for his own voluntary action to be accepted by the player propelling the ball? Always? Never? Sometimes? E.g. only outside the shooting circle even if the ball is flicked – a legal stroke in any open play? (The justification for raising a hit at a defender in the circle is often that it is legal to raise a shot hit at the goal – but clearly, for fairness and safety, something more than just the legality of the stroke used is required of the player propelling the ball.) Debate concerning forced ball/foot contact will always tend to shift towards arguments concerning the forcing of self-defence (or endangerment), playing the ball towards an opponent’s head being an extreme example of playing the ball at any part of an opponent. So how about a position, more than 5m from the ball – and possibly in the circle – when a defender is hit on the head with the ball – who is responsible – one player, both, neither?
A dictionary definition:
Voluntary adj.
1. Done or undertaken of one’s own free will: a voluntary decision to leave the job.
2. Acting or done willingly and without constraint or expectation of reward: a voluntary hostage; voluntary community work.
3. Normally controlled by or subject to individual volition: voluntary muscle contractions.
4. Capable of making choices; having the faculty of will.
5. Supported by contributions or charitable donations rather than by government appropriations: voluntary hospitals.
6. Law a. Without legal obligation or consideration: (consideration can be viewed as a legal term for payment; with money or goods or services) a voluntary conveyance of property.
b. Done deliberately; intentionally: voluntary manslaughter.
These adjectives mean being or resulting from one’s own free will.
Voluntary implies the operation of unforced choice: “Ignorance, when it is voluntary, is criminal” (Samuel Johnson).
Intentional applies to something undertaken to further a plan or realize an aim: ”I will abstain from all intentional wrongdoing and harm” (Hippocratic Oath.
Deliberate stresses premeditation and full awareness of the character and consequences of one’s acts: taking deliberate and decisive action.
Wilful implies deliberate, headstrong persistence in a self-determined course of action: a wilful waste of time.
Willing suggests ready or cheerful acquiescence in the proposals or requirements of another: ”The first requisite of a good citizen … is that he shall be able and willing to pull his weight” (Theodore Roosevelt).
What is meant by the asserted ‘acceptance of risk’, and whether or not it is actually relevant to the application of this Rule, might also be considered.
from a free hit awarded to the attack within the 23 metres area, the ball must not be played into the circle until it has travelled at least 5 metres or has been touched by a player of either team other than the player taking the free hit.
If the player taking the free hit continues to play the ball (ie no other player has yet played it) : – that player may play the ball any number of times, but – the ball must travel at least 5 metres, before – that player plays the ball into the circle by hitting or pushing the ball again.
Alternatively :
– another player of either team who can legitimately play the ball must deflect, hit or push the ball before it enters the circle, or – after this player has touched the ball, it can be played into the circle by any other player including the player who took the free hit.
This Rule clause ought to be withdrawn on the grounds that it is unnecessary and the conditions disadvantage the side awarded a free-ball in the opponent’s 23m area – the penalty free in the opposition’s 23m area is so restricted it is no longer a free-ball. The facility to immediately hit the ball directly into the circle from any free-ball awarded in the opponent’s 23m area should be restored
There should instead be a prohibition on the raising of the ball into the opponent’s circlewith a hit or with a deflection of a hit – in any phase of play.
When a player hits the ball into the opponent’s circle, slight lifting of the ball, because of surface imperfections that cause it to ‘skip’, should be allowed for – the ball rising to no more than ball height – but the intention to hit the ball along the ground should be clear and a ball raised directly off the face of the stick-head should be considered a breach of Rule.
This Rule therefore needs amending
9.9 Players must not intentionally raise the ball from a hit except for a shot at goal.
A raised hit must be judged explicitly on whether or not it is raised intentionally. It is not an offence to raise the ball unintentionally from a hit, including a free hit, anywhere on the field unless it is dangerous.
If the ball is raised over an opponent’s stick or body on the ground, even within the circle, it is permitted unless judged to be dangerous.
Raising the ball with a hit, intentionally or not, should not be considered an offence
Except:
1) when it is judged to be dangerous play
( [a] if at a player within 5m and at above knee height [b] otherwise at the discretion of an umpire )
A rider that, unless shooting at the goal in the opponent’s circle, hitting the ball to rise above waist height (accidentally or not) will always be considered dangerous play and subject to penalty, is probably necessary, to avoid the return of chip or clip hitting over long distances.
2) when a player hits the ball into the opposing circle and
3) when a player hits the ball within the opposing circle but is not taking a shot at the goal.
The first exception reflects what is already common practice. (From the Umpire Manager’s Briefing ”forget lifted – think danger“)
Note for the Mandatory Experiment Direct Lift. Any free ball that is lifted directly with any permitted stroke (scoop, lob, flick etc.) should not be permitted to be raised to fall directly into the circle.
Terminology. With the introduction of the Direct Lift the term Free-Hit is no longer just a misnomer but a contradiction. It needs to be replaced with the term Free-Ball or Free-Pass .
Consider: – The Free-Hit may be raised with any stroke except a hit.
Rules of Hockey. ‘Foot’. Forcing. “Gains benefit”. Confusion and con.
I included these opening posts when posting the entire discussion thread in my article Loopy Vicious Circles http://wp.me/pKOEk-VFon April 1st. but did not comment on the individual posts except to say that some of the contributors seemed to be unaware of the topic of the thread. ‘Distraction techniques’ used in discussion – the politician’s trick of answering the question they have an answer for or want to answer, rather than the questions asked, often done ‘automatically’, as if to a script – is evident here, but I don’t think it is deliberate, the posters are just repeating arguments that those who have previously employed such evasions have ‘trained’ them to give. The same pattern can be seen in umpiring decisions given.
The thread begins with several questions from someone new to umpiring – and maybe even new to field-hockey.
Dan Quinton Can you more experienced umpires please advise on what you look out for and what you do about attackers intentionally pushing the ball onto a defenders foot in the D. I am still struggling with the fact that players always expect a PC to be given if the ball hits a defenders foot in D, whatever happens.
Dan Quinton is the kind of novice that this advice – from a UK County Umpires Association Handbook – was aimed at :-
The notes to the foot body rule 9.11 say it is an offence ‘only’ when contact with the ball is ‘voluntary’, but in practice an accidental contact that alters the balance of play is just as much an offence as deliberately playing with foot or body.
This is just one example of interpreting rules consistently with your partner and with other umpires the teams will have. Sometimes their interpretation will differ from how the rule seems, to you, to read. But you must umpire play their way, and never apply your own version. If that leaves you uncomfortable then a bit of lateral thinking should soon enough make the same sense of it for you as it does for everyone else.
That advice is pernicious nonsense but it is typical of the kind of instruction given to novice umpires, especially young ones, by umpire coaches from their local umpiring associations. The correct advice would be to get to know and understand the Rule and Rule Guidance as given in the rule book and to apply it literally as written. Those who would react with feigned horror at such an idea and point out the many flaws there are in the published Rules of Hockey, might then do something to address such flaws, instead of dismissing the parts that do not fit with their ‘personal philosophy’ of how hockey should be both governed and umpired – their own ‘interpretations’ (which are, of course, in the opinion of these umpires, far superior to the Rule and Rule Guidance published by the FIH Rules Committee) . The author of the above rubbish regularly posts on a hockey related website that umpires commonly allow play to continue when there is an unintentional foot/ball contact – a view at odds with what he has been coaching – because ‘in practice’ any foot/ball contact will be assumed to alter the balance of play in some way .
kaiwawaoThe simple answer is that you can’t do anything about the “manufactured foul” as the rule against it was deleted a little while back. Your only consideration now is whether there was any danger – you cannot penalise an attacker for putting the ball onto a foot in the D.
That is exactly the situation but then kaiwawao continues…
A slightly longer view I would add that is yes, you can certainly argue for a play on or no foul especially if the ball was going to go out of play were it not for the contact. Indeed if it does go out anyway you could then give a LC but you’d struggle to convince most players at most levels to READ the rules let alone know all the amendments that have happened in the years since they last looked at the book so your life will be easier to give a PC
Probably without noticing that he has done so, he has changed the subject being discussed – which was the forcing of a ball/foot contact onto an opponent by a player in possession of the ball – and writes about ‘arguing’ for “play-on – no offence” after the ball has hit the defender’s foot, the ‘no offence’ he is referring to being the foot/ball contact, not the forcing action of the player who was in possession of the ball.
The expectation of players that is referred to in the opening post is that any ball/foot contact will be penalised as an offence; but who, it must be asked, is the umpire ‘arguing’ with – if not himself. What has the expectation of players to do with giving the correct decision? Why worry about the expectation of players if one is convinced that they don’t know the Rules ? (That players do not know the Rules is – an often inaccurate – slur on players that umpires commonly and casually repeat, despite those same umpires ignoring much of the published Rules of Hockey and substituting their own ‘common sense’ so that players cannot ‘know’ what ‘rules’ are being applied.) Who creates the expectation of players but umpires? Players come to expect umpires to do as other umpires have done – the advice quoted from the hand-book above is for umpires to do just that – and not to try to make their own sense of what is given in the rule book.
I’m sure there are plenty of umpires who consider the removal unfortunate due to the the way it has legitimised the lazy players “winning” a PC because they “skilfully” managed to put the ball onto the foot of a defender when a pass or a shot would be more attractive or even more logical play.
But these umpires do not, it appears, act on their considered opinion. The removal of forcing as an offence has not legitimized the ‘winning’ of a penalty corner by the forcing of a foot contact by an opponent. The forcing of the contact may not be an offence in itself (but may also be dangerous play) , but the fact that the contact is forced must mean that the foot/ball was not made voluntarily by the player hit and therefore cannot be an offence by the player hit. The removal of forcing as an offence does not ‘automatically’ convert all forced ball/foot contact into an offence by the player hit with the ball, it simply removes the previous facility to penalise a player forcing such a contact. The two incidents – forcing and being hit with the ball – are different and separate and by different players, in fact opposed competitors.
HackerNot sure I would agree. For me if there is no movement by the defender to actively use their foor OR if the defender hasn’t IMO deliberately position their feet to block the ball AND there is no attacker positioned to play the ball (it’s no a legitimate pass) then its play on. I was quite a heavy user of manufactured foul so mourn its passing).
Hacker continues along the path the discussion has been diverted onto. He proposes several conditions to be met if the defender is not to be penalised (if the ball has been intentionally forced onto the defender’s foot by an attacker). That forcing was previously an offence by a player in possession of the ball has been overlooked – the part in brackets is omitted from thinking. I don’t believe this is intentional in this case, it’s just habit. Umpires habitually regard any foot/ball contact as an offence and a potential need for penalty. He doesn’t directly mention ‘gains benefit’ but writes of the absence of an attacker positioned to play the ball and as if intentionally forcing the ball into the foot of a defender could at the same time be regarded as a legitimate attempt to make a pass (the attacker ‘having (keeping) his cake and eating it’): it can’t be both. The gained benefit exception to the Rule Guidance to Rule 9.11. was in any case deleted several years ago and so the presence or absence of a team-mate of the player forcing a foot contact on the far side of the player hit with the ball is (doubly?) irrelevant. Attempting to pass the ball ‘through’ an opponent is in any case a contradiction in terms – pass being a shortening of by-pass i.e. going around, not ‘through’ – and very poor hockey, ‘passes’ are not made at opponents.
Inverting cause and reallocating blame has become a much used, even overused strategy, there are examples of it within previous issues of the Rules of Hockey and in ‘common practice’. The prime example of such an inversion of a Rule in the Rules of Hockey was the (now deleted) PIT Interpretation of the Obstruction Rule (9.12) which, in a way that was similar to the ‘flip’ from discussing ’forcing’ to discussing a contact offence – seen above – flipped from mention of obstructive actions by a player in possession of the ball to describing actions by a player attempting to tackle for the ball, which would have been more appropriately placed in the following Rule (9.13), (that forbids tackling from a position where physical contact would occur). This interpretation effectively destroyed the Obstruction Rule by distracting attention from the purpose of the Rule, the prohibiting of obstructive actions. The prime example of ‘inversion’ in the ‘common practice’ of umpires, is the unwritten ‘rule’ they have invented that declares an ‘on target’ shot at the goal cannot be considered dangerous play. Both of these inversions have become so ingrained (PIT is still applied even though deleted after 2003) that if umpires are asked to describe circumstances in which they would penalise a shot made at a player defending his team’s goal, made more than 5m from that player, as dangerous play or to describe circumstances of ball shielding – without physical contact – which they would penalise as Obstruction, they have no reply. In these areas umpires are no longer making or even attempting to make decisions about dangerous play and obstruction, they simply don’t see offences.
Dan Quinton thanks kaiwawao – as someone relatively new to umpiring (me that is) are you saying that there used to be a rule to prevent ‘manufactured fouls’ in the D? When and why was it removed? I dont see the logic as it seems so easy to do in the D and get a short for nothing.
When? Officially in 2011. Why? Because for some years the forcing of a foot contact was ignored; incredibly the FIH RC amended (deleted) Rule to follow ‘practice’. Why the ‘practice’? It is much easier to make the observation “Did the ball hit a foot?” than the judgement “Did the player in possession of the ball propel the ball into his opponent’s foot intentionally?” Once the habit of penalising foot/ball contact became established the reasons for doing so were simply ‘forgotten’, so even obviously forced contact resulted in the player hit with the ball being penalised as a matter of established practice and player expectation. ”An ‘on target’ shot at goal cannot be dangerous” is just an extension of the same idea – with a few added ‘bells and whistles’ such as ‘accepting risk’, ‘positioning with intent’ ‘causing danger by positioning’ ‘intent to use the body if the ball is missed with the stick’ – any excuse to avoid examining the actions and intent of the player who raised the ball and endangered an opponent by doing so. Motive? More penalty corners, more goals.
I have picked out one other post because it gives another ‘slant’ to the penalising of offences.
ToPpS I know at tournaments, we’re briefed that attackers have to “EARN” their short corners! As other members have pointed out, if the the defender has gained an advantage from having the ball touch their foot in the circle/D, then it’s a short corner. If they have NOT gained an advantage then it’s a play on.
Granted you need either the experience or the confidence (balls) to sell that to the players, as they are conditioned to expect the short corner. Blow it, don’t blow it but be consistent in your decisions throughout the match and you should be fine.
As the others have done, ToPps ignores the topic of the thread and looks instead to find an offence in the foot/ball contact and does so via the long deleted ‘gains benefit exception to the Rule Guidance to Rule 9.11‘. He also goes along with the strange notion that Rule compliant decisions would have to be ‘sold’ to players whom other umpires have ‘trained’ to expect something else: as kaiwawao noted, it is much easier to do what is expected (in this case award a penalty corner, even if it is completely wrong). The slant that ToPps introduces – from briefing he has received – is the ‘earning’ of a penalty. What an Umpire Coach should be conveying to candidate umpires is that where an advantage can be played it should be played, so players should not, as they commonly do, just shove the ball into the foot of an opponent and then immediately stop playing, assuming the ‘automatic’ penalty ‘won’. A penalty is in any case a penalty against the team of a player who has committed an offence, it is not a reward given to and certainly not ’earned’ by an action of the opposing team. The deletion of forcing as an offence in its own right has ‘dented’ that principle, but it still holds true: penalties should not be regarded as rewards and ‘played for’ or ‘created’. Umpires should not allow themselves to be ‘conned’ in this way, even if it is easy to ‘go along’ with the con and they are expected by ‘everybody’ to do so for the sake of consistency.
That umpires did consistently ignore forcing and still ignore obstructive ball shielding, but still insist on penalising unintentional ball/body contact, is just a historical accident, doing as other umpires have done and are doing; ‘common practice’ could just as easily been the opposite had a lead been given in the opposite direction.
Field Hockey Rules. Obstruction. Backsticks. Different penalties.
The first clip shows a defender deliberately shielding the ball to prevent an opponent making a tackle attempt and also moving bodily into the opponent – who is obliged to retreat to avoid contact (for fear of being penalised for tackling with contact). For some reason, that I cannot fathom, the umpires waves play on until a second attacker tries to get at the ball from the other side of the ball-holder, waits a few seconds, and then awards a penalty corner.
In the first incident in the next clip what looks like a backstick shot at the goal is scored from. Unfortunately the frame rate of the original is low, so the slow-motion is not much help in deciding what happened. The second incident is clearly backsticks but there is some doubt about the intent of the defender and certainly about her Rule knowledge. I say that because if she had knocked the ball off the base-line a penalty corner would have been used as a re-start (an alternative would be much fairer here http://wp.me/pKOEk-Kd ). If she had shielded the ball and ‘crab-walked’ it out of the circle she may not have been penalised at all. The player was obviously shocked to have a penalty stroke awarded against her team because she failed to turn the head of the stick sufficiently.
What surprises me is 1) that a deliberate obstruction, which clearly prevents an opponent playing the ball, is penalised with a penalty corner and not, as it should have been, with a penalty stroke. Why should it not be a penalty stroke? 2) that backsticks continues to be regarded as an offence almost fifteen years after edge hitting was introduced – when it was obviously introduced to circumvent ‘back-sticks’ and in response to a demand for facility to hit the ball from the left of the body – but 3) ball shielding and moving into an opponent while doing so – two offences – are not seen as offences.
In the 2010 World Cup it was obvious that the Chinese team had been coached to avoid giving obstruction (and they played very attractive hockey). This was not as evident in 2012 at the London Olympics, but the habit of movement away rather than turning and blocking was obviously still there. I suppose that by the next World Cup they will obstruct opponents as readily and as deliberately as any of the other top teams – a pity.
One of the justifications given for introducing edge-hitting was that it was very difficult for an umpire to tell if the face of the stick-head or the back of it had been used to strike the ball. That ‘reasoning’ made no sense to me at the time (1999) and still doesn’t. But it makes good sense as an argument to allow the ball to be played with any part of the stick -head.
The reverse edge hit is not an easy stroke to execute (and the ‘hard’ forehand edge hit has been banned because of the difficulty there is in controlling the path and flight of the ball). The incident shown in the video is outside the shooting circle and would be illegal even if not dangerous – the ball has been intentionally lifted with a hit – but too often the stroke is used like that as a means of making a shot at the goal, ’through’ any defender unfortunate enough to get in the way. Unfortunate because it is the defender who is likely to be penalised – even if injured. Another contrast in penalty but this time because of location - and the bizarre notion that an ‘on target’ shot at the goal cannot be dangerous play - rather than the nature of the offence. If that incident had occurred in the circle as a shot at the goal it’s not unlikely that the defender would be penalised for positioning with intent to stop the ball with his body.
Discussion in ‘Umpiring Corner’ started by Cookie,Mar 6, 2013.
Cookie
I have a feeling this may have been discussed but i couldn’t find it.
In the guidance to 13.3l it talks about if a defender is within 5m of the first shot at a PC and is hit below the knee its another PC and if above the knee its FHD.
My question is whether that is really meant to cover the runner at the top of the circle – or does it apply to the first shot if it is less than 5m from goal.
So I actually had the scenario on Saturday where a scrappy PC resulted in the first shot being a flick from about 4 yards out which hit a defender in his midriff. He was just off the line and so i am asking should that be FHD under the guidance or PS?
Similarly had it hit him below the knee then a strict reading of the guidance would suggest its a PC and not a PS – which surely can’t be intended.
jayjay
yes, this is really meant to be in reference to the first runner, though you are right that that isn’t actually specifically said. the idea behind this guidance is that a ball which strikes someone above the knees who is closer than 5 metres to the taker is supposedly going over the goal, rather than travelling on a path that would score a goal.
in your situation you should simply consider danger. and the guidance of one rule does not overrule the text of the rule of another. so if it hit his feet on the line and stopped the probable scoring (or actually the certain scoring of a goal, barring a dog materialising out of thin air on the line) of a goal, that that should be a PS, in accordance with 12.4 a. no doubt the usual suspects will tell you to simply “play on” as the person didnt stop the ball with their body “voluntarily”. just apply common sense to the situation and you’ll be fine.
*********************
I am not one of the usual suspects, I am guilty as charged, but not only would I say that there was no offence by the defender, if the contact was not made “voluntarily”, I would also say the first instance described was in any event a dangerous play offence by the attacker. I would add that in the case of a hit below the knee, even thought there is a very obvious benefit gained by the defender for his team – i.e. preventing the ball entering the goal, it is not now possible to invoke the ‘gained benefit exception to “not done voluntarily” because that exception has been deleted.
There should of course be a ‘gains unfair advantage exception’ when a shot is not dangerous according to Rule 13.3.l. or Rules 9.8 and 9.9 – but there isn’t – “them’s the Rules as they are written in 2013″. ”Disadvantaged opponents” is of course only applicable when there has been an offence, the competitors in a hockey match spend the entire game legitimately trying to disadvantage each other. Disadvantaging an opponent is not of it self either a breach of Rule or an offence.
The assertion that Rule 13.3.l is meant to be in reference only to a ball propelled at a first runner must be rejected. There is no freedom for the attackers in Rule 13,3,k to strike a first hit shot as high as they wish if it is not struck at or past an out-running defender – a pass to the injector does not free the injector to then make an above knee height hit shot – why should the Rules that pertain in the penalty corner situation be any different for a first shot that is flicked if it is not flicked immediately from the top of the circle but taken closer to the goal and then flicked?
The second incident in the clip below is fairly similar to the one described in the opening post. The shot is made from around 4m and hits the defender just below the throat. Fortunately it was not made at the maximum velocity the shooter was capable of, because it was made off the front foot, and the defender was not injured, but the shot was certainly contrary to the Rules of Hockey – within 5m and raised to above knee height at an opponent. I strongly dispute the assertion or assumption made, that Rule 13.3.l applies only when a ball is propelled at an out-runner near the top of the circle. Penalising an above knee height flick made from within 5m of an opponent is also completely compatible with the Guidance given in Rule 9.9. concerning the raising of the ball with a flick at a player within 5m in any phase of play (no height limit given) - so one way or another, raising the ball at an opponent who is within 5m is, by Rule, considered dangerous play.
The incident in the International Match is a lot more difficult. The shot is legal in that it is made from beyond 5m – so no height limit is aplicable. The defender tries to play the ball with his stick. I see no evidence that he played it with his body intentionally, but voluntarily? Who knows? I am uneasy when I see a penalty stroke given when the circumstances and reasons for awarding it are less than completely clear and the actions of the player hit are not very obviously contrary to Rule. It should be noted that the Australians asked for a video referral citing a dangerously played shot. Ifit were a Rule, that an on target shot at goal could not be dangerous, the match umpire could not reasonably have put the question to the video umpire ( unnecessarily delaying the game) when the answer would have been a foregone conclusion.
The first incident on the video clip, the international Match, is an example where the playing of the ball at an opponent at above elbow height being considered a dangerous play offence would make the task of the umpire easier and the application of Rule fairer. Should the shot be too high and of a velocity that could injure anyone hit with it, it is penalised, if it is not above elbow height (sternum) and is prevented from entering the goal by a field player other than with the stick – penalty stroke.
************************
shipstontkdI take this guidance to mean any runners or defenders in the D, however a defender on the line is a completely different kettle of fish. He/she knows the risks they are taking being on the line and would suggest that they would expect the ps in most cases. As a matter of interest what was your call on Sat?
DavidBurns
shipstontkd said: I take this guidance to mean any runners or defenders in the D, however a defender on the line is a completely different kettle of fish.
So you dont take the guidance to mean ANY runner or defender in the D, a defender on the line is still a defender in the circle.
DavidBurns
jayjay said: yes, this is really meant to be in reference to the first runner,
Do you use this for strikes at goal or just dragflicks?
A hit striking someone just below the knee at 4.5m would more than likely be passing the line above bb height. would you still apply the guidance or blow it for the hit being too high?
Resslys Agent likes this.
Diligent
Blow it: would be too high if it had reached the goal line.
jayjay
DavidBurns: as you can see, this guidance is in regards to rule 13.3 l, thus does not apply to the first shot at goal if this is a hit, that’s covered by 13.3 k. while you could therefore apply it to subsequent shots at goal that are hits, i think the guidance really is only truly useful when applied to the first shot that isnt a hit when a defender is charging it down at the top of the D. for all other situations you can simply use your common sense to apply the danger rule.
DavidBurns
Ta much
deegum
JJ said: no doubt the usual suspects will tell you to simply “play on” as the person didn’t stop the ball with their body “voluntarily”.
This suspect won’t this time.
JayJay said: in your situation you should simply consider danger……,
And
as you can see, this guidance is in regards to rule 13.3 l, thus does not apply to the first shot at goal if this is a hit
JayJay, may I, very politely, with no hostility etc., say you are simply wrong in this case.:
If a defender is within 5m of the first shot, and is struck by the ball, no goal can be scored. regardless of how long after the ball is injected it is taken, or the type of stroke, or from how far out from goal, or how hard, or soft, or how high, or low, the contact is. [Retake PC or FHD are the options]
13.3.l lf a defender is within five metres of the first shot at goal during the taking of a penalty corner and is struck by the ball below the knee…
Plain unambiguous statement that could hardly be any clearer, a statement that in no way modifies the requirements or Guidance of 13.3.k
From the OP
first shot being a flick from about 4 yards out which hit a defender in his midriff.
There’s also rule 9.9
Players are permitted to raise the ball with a flick or scoop provided it is not dangerous. A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous
Multiple posts merged by moderator – Deegum please try to sort out your browser problem.
Resslys Agent
Going against guidance and using triganometry, if it hits below shin pad within 5 from a at the top of the D from a shot that is hit, then chances are it is going above the 18 inches of the backboard!
However, as we can’t always determine speed which will affect balls trajectory then we should use the guidance.
Diligent
Just as plain and unambiguous a statement is the note to 13.3k:
If the first shot at goal is a hit and the ball is, or will be, too high crossing the goal line it must be penalised…
It might strike a defender below the knee, but if it was rising to cross the line above 460mm, that’s a FHD.
deegum
Sorry about the ” multiple posts” folks. They didn’t show up at my end, simply disappeared into the ether, I didn’t know I had that particular problem.
jayjay
deegum, i was simply making the point that if its a hit, we apply the guidance for what happens when the first shot at goal at a PC is a hit, and when its a flick, we apply the guidance of what happens when the first shot at goal at a PC is a flick. seemed simple enough to me.
you’ll find i was in no way making a reference towards the scenario in the OP, as i had already said, regard danger.
*********************
The two questions:-
He was just off the line and so i am asking should that be FHD under the guidance or PS?
Answer Free ball to defence for dangerous play, there is no justification whatsoever for a penalty stroke.
Similarly had it hit him below the knee then a strict reading of the guidance would suggest its a PC and not a PS – which surely can’t be intended.
Answer. During a penalty corner the Rules clearly mandate the award of another penalty corner if a defender is hit below the knee with a shot taken from less than 5m.
In open play “Play on” – there are reasonable grounds to penalise when the shot is a second or subsequent shot or is made in open play, even when the ball/body contact was accidental and unavoidable by the defender, a goal has been prevented by illicit means (an action that would be an offence if done intentionally), but in the absence of intention and of a gains benefit exception to the ‘voluntarily’ Guidance, there no longer exists a Rule justification to do so. Someone ought to inform the FIH RC: perhaps a National Umpiring Association should do that. It is not reasonable for umpires to be substituting their ‘common sense’ for Rule six years after a deletion has thrown up such a frequently occurring problem. But the last thing wanted is a return to the ‘blanket’ “gained benefit” where every ball/body contact is assumed to be of benefit or to disadvantage opponents and therefore open to penalty – in fact it would be better not to penalise foot/ball contact at all than to return to a situation where an umpire can find reason to penalise all such contacts, because many would do just that – some still do - thus encouraging attackers to force such contacts (especially as there is now no Rule which specifically forbids the forcing of a ball/body contact onto an opponent if the ball is not played in a dangerous way i.e. the ball is played into an opponent’s feet).
It is fair that the forcing of a ball/foot contact be no longer regarded as an offence if – and only if – foot/ball contact be no longer regarded as an offence. This arrangement makes intent irrelevant. That might be workable with a ‘gained unfair advantage exception’, applicable only when a certain goal was prevented after a legal (non dangerous) shot or a player in possession of the ball made foot contact with it. Dangerous play that results in ball/body contact by an opponent should of course be penalised as dangerous play – that is not happening at the moment when the dangerous play (a raised ball) is a shot at (or ‘through’) field-players defending their own goal, often not even, as can be seen in the video example, when the criterion – above knee height at an opponent within 5m – clearly applies.
Rules of Hockey. Deletions. The Offence of Forcing. The Gains Benefit exception clause.
There have been two significant deletions from the Rules of Hockey since 2006. The first, the ‘gains benefit’ exception clause from the Rule Guidance to Rule 9.11 (the ball/body contact rule). A note on the FIH website apparently initiated by the (then) Chair of the Umpires Committee, postponed the deletion until the expiry of the 2007-9 Rules of Hockey. see http://wp.me/pKOEk-xj Post January 2009, with the issue of a new rulebook sans ‘gains benefit’ , the deletion has to be accepted to have taken place, especially since it has not ‘re-surfaced’ in any subsequent issue of the Rules of Hockey.
The second, is the deletion of the offence of forcing (that is the forcing of an opponent into a technical breach of Rule) as an offence in itself, which took place in 2011.
‘Forcing’ is :- 1) The forcing of a body/ball contact, generally a foot/ball contact by playing the ball at an opponent from short range and/or at high velocity such that a contact could not be avoided by the player hit. The forcing of self-defence – legitimate evasive action – by such an action, defines a dangerously played ball.. 2) The forcing of an ‘obstruction’, again an action carried out by a player in possession of the ball, the ball holder generally pushing the ball to the far side of an opponent and then running into that opponent claiming that the opponent obstructed the direct path to the ball.
The illicit forcing of self-defence (dangerous play) and of an unintended ball/body contact have been either specifically prohibited actions or actions which should not result in penalty against the player hit with the ball, within the the Rules of Hockey beyond living memory. The gaining of an advantage or an unfair benefit has a more chequered history, having been deleted or omitted at least three times in the past twenty-five years.
These are from the 1990 rule book.
A player shall not:- 12.1 (e) hit wildly into an opponent or play or raise or kick (goalkeepers) the ball in such a way as to be dangerous in itself, or likely to lead to dangerous play or play the ball intentionally into an opponent’s foot, leg or body.
12.1. a) stop or deflect the ball on the ground or in the air with any part of the body TO HIS OR HIS TEAM’S ADVANTAGE.
The illicit forcing of obstruction has been penalised since the early 1990′s as a barging offence but was not much penalised before then.
Examples of forcing.
The Dutch player was awarded a free-ball.
This is a very unusual occurance – it might reasonablely be called an isolated incident and should have ‘earned’ at least a (long) yellow card, not a free ball.
.
A penalty corner was awarded against the team of the player hit with the ball.
The penalising of a forced ball/foot/leg contact is so common and ‘accepted’ ‘expected’, that not penalising such a contact would be an unusual and isolated incident.
The deletion of both ‘gains benefit’ and ‘forcing’ are obviously grave errors of judgement on the part of first the FIH HRB and then the (renamed) FIH Rules Committee. Both of these areas needed further clarification and amendment; complete deletion should not have been contemplated. The deletions have caused great confusion and not a little mischief. The text below is from a web-site that at one time ran a forum for hockey players and umpires. The confusion and the mischief are evident. Only one post has been omitted, the poster himself declaring it ‘off topic’.
The posts have been assembled by ‘copy and paste’, only one alteration to the wording has been made, a name, where a quote was incorrectly ascribed by the poster.
The topic of the thread was “ What you look out for and what you do about attackers intentionally pushing the ball onto a defenders foot in the D?”
Some of the contributors to it didn’t seem to be aware of the topic being discussed. In the posts that follow there is clearly little understanding of the difference between – allowing play to continue after an offence has been committed because the side offended against can play on with advantage (which an umpire is obliged to do) – and not allowing play to continue, (penalising) because an unfair advantage has been obtained due to an unintentional breach of Rule 9.11 – or awareness of the fact, that due to the deletion of the gains benefit exception clause, applying a penalty against a player hit with the ball, when the contact is forced i.e. not made voluntarily, is no longer a possibility within the Rules in any circumstances.
The Members of the FIH Rules Committee and the FIH Umpiring ought to read this ‘discussion’ thread. It is an opportunity for salutatory lessons to be learned about drafting clear Rule and Rule Guidance and letting ‘interpretation’ out of control and into the ‘hands’ of individuals who are ……………. let the reader decide.
****
The Posts.
Dan Quinton Unfortunately Justin’s thread on ‘foot in the D not always being a PC’ is no longer open to replies – hence a new thread. Can you more experienced umpires please advise on what you look out for and what you do about attackers intentionally pushing the ball onto a defenders foot in the D. I am still struggling with the fact that players always expect a PC to be given if the ball hits a defenders foot in D, whatever happens. kaiwawao The simple answer is that you can’t do anything about the “manufactured foul” as the rule against it was deleted a little while back. Your only consideration now is whether there was any danger – you cannot penalise an attacker for putting the ball onto a foot in the D.
A slightly longer view I would add that is yes, you can certainly argue for a play on or no foul especially if the ball was going to go out of play were it not for the contact. Indeed if it does go out anyway you could then give a LC but you’d struggle to convince most players at most levels to READ the rules let alone know all the amendments that have happened in the years since they last looked at the book so your life will be easier to give a PC I’m sure there are plenty of umpires who consider the removal unfortunate due to the the way it has legitimised the lazy players “winning” a PC because they “skilfully” managed to put the ball onto the foot of a defender when a pass or a shot would be more attractive or even more logical play.
Hacker Not sure I would agree. For me if there is no movement by the defender to actively use their foor OR if the defender hasn’t IMO deliberately position their feet to block the ball AND there is no attacker positioned to play the ball (it’s no a legitimate pass) then its play on. I was quite a heavy user of manufactured foul so mourn its passing). Dan Quinton thanks kaiwawao – as someone relatively new to umpiring (me that is) are you saying that there used to be a rule to prevent ‘manufactured fouls’ in the D? When and why was it removed? I dont see the logic as it seems so easy to do in the D and get a short for nothing. Gold, I probably do not come into the category of what Dan Quinton means by “more experienced umpire” but I will still offer a view If the ball is played (say by the attacker) intentionally onto the (defender’s) foot then the attacker has not been disadvantaged (he has chosen to play it there) and consequently no foul has occurred i.e. “play on”. Of course, it is often difficult to determine intention so I think most umpires would apply this interpretation only (if at all) when they are convinced that this was the attacker’s intention (possibly judging this by the actions of the attacker after he has played the hall and / or whether it could have been intended as a pass to another attacker). Another line of argument in favour of “play on” is that in order for an offence to occur the defender has to have “voluntarily” played the ball with his feet (or positioned himself with the intention of doing so). The word “voluntarily” is not the same as “intentionally” but seems capable of various interpretations; some argue that any player attempting to tackle a player with the ball is doing so voluntarily and is therefore likely to be penalized if their the ball makes contact with their feet; I find it difficult to agree with that construction and think that it should be interpreted so that a player who could not reasonably avoid being hit by the ball, should not be penalized. It is still subjective as to whether a player could have avoided being hit by the ball but when the ball is played at close range directly onto a stationary defender’s foot (especially at an unexpected angle) then I think that call can be made – and should be if it is clearly intentional. nerd_is_the_word I think the easiest way to blow the foot rule these days is to look at one simple thing: what would have happened if the foot wasn’t there. As kaiwawao has said, if the ball was goign to go off the backline, or would otherwise have benefited the defence more than the attack then play on. otherwise PC. One of the things that I and many umpires now use is to yell in a big loud voice something like, “keep playing” or similar and encourage the attack to continue in order to avoid having to blow a PC for something like this. johnreiss as has been said, there’s now no such thing as a manufactured foul. Either the defender’s foot gained him an advantage or it didn’t. If it did (eg stopped the ball going to another attacker, its a pc. If it merely brushed his foot with no benefit (no attacker within playing distance)= no offence = play on.
kaiwawao The rule was changed in the rule book effective from 1st January. 2011
The Rule which used to say that “players must not force an opponent into offending unintentionally” is deleted because any action of this sort can be dealt with under other Rules. The rulebook for the previous period had the rule worded as:
9. I5 Players must not force an opponent into offending unintentionally. Playing the ball clearly and intentionally into any part of an opponent’s body may be penalised as an attempt to manufacture an offence.
Forcing an opponent to obstruct (often emphasised by running into an opponent or by waving the stick) must also be penalised.The cynical view would be that it was deleted as it was not blown often. Comments that were on FHF previously (might have been deleted now the board software was changed) suggested especially at the highest levels umpires could not judge the intent of the attacker so could not penalise them. It’s a shame it was deleted as it’s clear that the manufactured foul cannot be penalised using any other part of the rulebook.
Gold nerd_is_the_word said: I think the easiest way to blow the foot rule these days Is to took at one simple thing: what would have happened If the foot wasn’t there.
I agree with this simple approach, in so far as it goes. However, it doesn’t specifically deal with the situation where the ball is played intentionally onto the defender’s foot (assuming a material contact) – unless you are also prepared to say (in appropriate circumstances) that the defender has not gained an advantage because the attacker has given away the possession and control that he previously had. I would be grateful for any views on whether such an approach is generally adopted – and, if not, the reason(s) for not doing so.
nerd_is_the_word Gold, that’s exactly what I am looking at. If its played into the defenders feet, was there an attacker behind the defender who would have received the pass? would the attacker have had enough room to regather the ball?or would the ball simply have rolled off the back line for a 16? as far as the attacker gaining material advantage, its not about the attacker losing control, its about whether the defender has made their life easier by stopping the ball illegally. Bondy A lot of philosophical debate could be had on this topic, and as we know there’ll be some very strongly held opinions on both sides. I want to add one practical point though, from my experience of game management at a high level. If a fullback is expecting a PC to be given, the odds are that a PC is going to be the “right” decision for the game – and not giving one, regardless of how you view the technicalities of the rules, is just going to needlessly annoy one team, and make the rest of the game harder for you.
chrisberry2k I’ve found that normally when you do give a LC instead of a PC once the defender’s asked “that hit a foot isn’t it a short” and you reply “where was the advantage?” – after a bit of head scratching you’ll gt a lot of agreement. You just need to make sure that you’re in the right position to be able to make that call. Easy if it’s played in to a foot with reasonable force then goes off the back. If it stays in play it gets far more hazy both in terms of the decision and potential agreement from the offence! pogoref I’m still trying to convince players and some fellow umpires that a LC is the correct decision where no advantage has been gained. As I posted on a thread some time ago, a more senior umpire stopped the game in order to speak to me and when I stuck to my decision he described it as a “brave decision”. Nij
Kaiwawao said The Rule which used to say that “players must not force an opponent into offending unintentionally” is deleted because any action of this sort can be dealt with under other Rules.
Its a shame It was deleted as it’s dear that the manufactured foul cannot be penalised using any other part of the rulebook.
That’s not what the first sentence is supposed to mean. There is no intent to penalise manufacturing a foul any more, which is what you take it to imply – it merely states that we are not to penalise the manufacturing of a foul as a foul itself, and whatever would have previously been treated under the manufactured foul rule, is now dealt with by any other rule that applies. Or, if no other rule applies, then we are to play on. So what would have previously been a deliberately played into the foot, is now just a foot. We don’t use the ‘manufactured foul’ rule – we use the ‘no playing ball with your foot or body’ rule. If an attempt to manufacture a foul is something likely to create dangerous play, then rules against danger are the obvious choice and readily available; if the manufactured foul does not create a disadvantage to the team who manufactured it, then we simply play on as per advantage rules.
pogoref While I apply the same interpretation as others, I do not consider putting the ball onto an opponent’s foot as being skillful. I would suggest that on most occasions danger will not be an issue but disadvantage will be because the ball is likely to stop or the defender gain possession. To me, this deliberate act is against the spirit of the rules and is a form of cheating. It is particularly galling when having to reward this action with a PC. However, all players expect the current interpretation so I will continue like everyone else.
kaiwawao
Nij said: That’s not what the first sentence is supposed to mean. There is no intent to penalise manufacturing a foul any more, which is what you take it to imply – it merely states that we are not to penalise the manufacturing of a foul as a foul itself, and whatever would have previously been treated under the manufactured foul rule, is now dealt with by any other rule that applies. Or, if no other rule applies, then we are to play on. So what would have previously been a deliberately played into the foot, is now just a foot. We don’t use the ‘manufactured foul’ rule – we use the ‘no playing ball with your foot or body’ rule. If an attempt to manufacture a foul is something likely to create dangerous play, then rules against danger are the obvious choice and readily available; if the manufactured foul does not create a disadvantage to the team who manufactured it, then we simply play on as per advantage rule.
I’d be interested to know who at the FIH you have spoken to who can confirm that Nij as I’m assuming you are not just stating your opinion in such as way that it sounds like official guidance.
If the rules were actually interpreted like that, it would at least encourage skilful play and probably more attacking, more attractive hockey as attackers would soon realise they have to use their ability to shoot or use intelligent passing especially when used with the current rule on body contact which advises not to penalise unless the defender used their body to play the ball or put their body in the way to stop the ball.
Unfortunately all that has happened with this rule change was to legitimise the use of ball to foot as a tactic for gaining a PC in the D even when there is no advantage or disadvantage from the contact.
Diligent kaiwawao said: all that has happened with this rule change was to legitimise the use of ball to foot as a tactic for gaining a PC in the D even when there is no advantage or disadvantage from the contact.
Correct, except that many umpires will play the advantage (no disadvantage). And you’re correct that a lot of people saw the change as ‘unfortunate’ . But it’s 2013, and those are the 2013 Rules.
ToPpS I know at tournaments, we’re briefed that attackers have to “EARN” their short corners! As other members have pointed out, if the the defender has gained an advantage from having the ball touch their foot in the circle/D, then it’s a short corner. If they have NOT gained an advantage then it’s a play on.
Granted you need either the experience or the confidence (balls) to sell that to the players, as they are conditioned to expect the short corner. Blow it, don’t blow it but be consistent in your decisions throughout the match and you should be fine. Keely likes this
Redumpire Can I ask a question about the reverse situation? If a defender has the ball in a tight spot in the circle and deliberately plays the ball onto an attacker’s foot in an attempt to win a free hit and so get out of the tight spot, what do we think should be blown? I’m pretty sure I’d blow for a FHD 99% of the time….
Bondy, Nij, keely like this
Porter There is a school of thought which says that if a forward is clever and skilful enough to put the ball on a defender’s foot, then the defender should be clever and skilful enough to be able to defend his own feet and prevent this happening. Does this also apply the other way around, as indicated in Red’s post above?
kaiwawao
Nij said: If the FIH wanted players who manufacture offences to be penalised, they would not have removed the single specific rule that targets the manufacturing of offences. It’s not a huge leap of logic to figure that, since they have actively taken out any reference to penalising manufacturing offences and have told us to deal with such situations under other rules, then we should a) stop looking to penalise the manufacturing of offences purely on that basis, and b) look at what other rules apply to the situation in its absence. In this case, it is particularly those on the ball hitting feet and, as with just about everything in modern hockey, the advantage concept.
So basically in other words, no, you don’t have any official guidance that your view on what this sentence means is what the FIH intended, you’ve just assumed your view is correct.
The note says:
The Rule which used to say that “players must not force an opponent into offending unintentionally” is deleted because any action of this sort can be dealt with under other Rules.
By the same sort of circular logic you employed, I could quite easily point out that as the FIH didn’t make the note ‘The Rule which used to say that “players must not force an opponent into offending unintentionally” is deleted because we no longer consider this to be an offence’ then I must be right.
I’m not getting into a debate on semantics, if you can get an official note from an FIH source to confirm this I will happily accept that, currently you are just writing several paragraphs of text to gloss over the fact you are stating your opinion.
Porter- if a defender is caught out by an attacker’s speed and is running alongside them in the D with the attacker closer to the backline/goal with obvious passing or shooting options available and the attacker suddenly spins and plays the ball onto the defender’s foot, is that something you feel the defender could reasonably have expected and been prepared to defend their feet against?
Moderator’s note: FHF regulars will spot a good few straw men here – challenges to write something that can be swatted down as ‘even more ridiculous than what you wrote before’. Please take care when replying: it is more useful to readers to discuss good current practice than what might have been. Keely kaiwawao said: if you can get an official note from an FIH source to confirm this I will happily accept that I’m not sure what would qualify as official enough, given that “notes” in the form of forum posts written by experienced FIH umpires repeating briefings from experienced FIH UMs have not been accepted in the past. On this topic, that terribly unofficial note on how we are apply the lack of a manufactured rule concept would read pretty much exactly like this:
I’m not sure what would qualify as official enough, given that “notes” in the form of forum posts written by experienced FIH umpires repeating briefings from experienced FIH UMs have not been accepted in the past. On this topic, that terribly unofficial note on how we are apply the lack of a manufactured rule concept would read pretty much exactly like this:
Very minor edit by official FHF moderator: sorry Keely, had to do it.
Diligent kaiwawao said: Porter – if a defender is caught out by an attacker’s speed and is running alongside them in the D with the attacker closer to the backline/goal with obvious passing or shooting options available and the attacker suddenly spins and plays the ball onto the defender’s foot, is that something you feel the defender could reasonably have expected and been prepared to defend their feet against?
My answer would be: not the defender, nor the umpire, would have expected that. But what happens next? - The moving defender kicks the ball towards goal, the way the attacker was going. No disadvantage, play on, except the attacker has to turn again to chase it. - The ball rebounds away from the attacker. PC for feet. At most hockey, an open attack with goal options becomes a PC, with considerably less chance of scoring. - The ball misses the defender’s foot. The attacker has lost possession. So whatever happens, the attacker’s team and bench are wondering why that ‘find a foot’ ever seemed a good idea. Will anyone try to ‘manufacture’ that particular offence again? Not likely. The ‘other rules’ have done their job. jayjay kaiwawao said: I’m not getting into a debate on semantics, if you can get an official note from an FIH source to confirm this I will happily accept that, currently you are just writing several paragraphs of text to gloss over the fact you are stating your opinion.
are you saying those of us on here who have regular contact with FIH UMs should ask them to please write it down for us after the briefing? because it is indeed as @Nij says: we’re to understand that sentence in the beginning of the rulebook to mean that manufacturing a foul is no longer a foul itself, but that many of the actions formerly penalised in reference to that rule, can now either be penalised under others (most commonly, i think, danger), or should be treated as “play on” situations, in accordance with the advantage rule. this is the common understanding FIH umpires share, and its being reinforced by what our UMs tell us.
now you might notice that this is not specifically stated in the UM briefing available online, and i think there’s a very simple reason why: the rulebook really explains it all. manufacturing a foul is no longer a foul. so we deal with every situation by applying the remaining rules. but even while we had the manufactured foul rule, you could easily have blown a player running into another player to claim obstruction as dangerous play rather than a manufactured foul. one option has been removed, the other remains.
imho, few umpires in my country had the sense (or maybe courage?) to actually apply the manufactured foul rule. a foot in the D was an automatic PC. since the deletion of the rule the FIH has placed greater focus on educating umpires to re-think such situations under the advantage rule and guidance, and i, for once, think this is much more effective in bringing about a genuine change. where before you had to make three decisions when the ball hit the foot (did it hit the foot? did it matter? was it manufactured foul?), you now only have two. i believe this brings higher consistency and makes it easier to understand for umpires who are aspiring to reach a high(er) standard of umpiring.
deegum Nij said: if the manufactured foul does not create a disadvantage to the team who manufactured it, then we simply play on as per advantage rules.
I cannot understand how in many instances, a “Manufactured foul” can result in a penalty against a defender. Porter’s example :”the attacker suddenly spins and plays the ball onto the defender’s foot,” I take it as describing a manufactured foul . ( Part of) Diligent’s reply: – The ball rebounds away from the attacker. PC for feet. I cannot understand how anyone could penalise the defender- it being implicit in the description that he would have zero chance of avoiding ball/ body contact Hence any penalising of the defender would be in breach of:
The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball or if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way.
Under this rule, advantaging or disadvantaging the opponent striking the ball is irrelevant. NO matter how great any advantage / disadvantage is.
nerd_is_the_word Gees this goes around in circles doesn’t it?
So deegum what your saying is that in that case the defender has not chosen to open their feet up to the ball being played?
Because that is the exact decision that every defender makes in that situation, to either reach for the ball and open up their feet, or to let the attacker shoot and make sure they don’t give away a corner.
And yes Deegum you are correct, it does describe a manufactured foul, a rule that no longer exists, and as has been said numerous times, is no longer penalised unless it breaks other rules.
Gold I have some sympathy with Deegum’s view of how Rule 9.11 should be interpreted. Indeed, based only on the words used, I find it difficult to see any other meaning. However, for whatever reason, this is not the interpretation arrived at by the vast majority (>99%?) of players and umpires and, until such time as there is further clarification in the rules or official guidance, it is necessary to use the criterion of whether the opponent’s team has been disadvantaged.
I like the way that Nij has encapsulated the issue: ”If an attempt to manufacture a foul is something likely to create dangerous play, then rules against danger are the obvious choice and readily available; if the manufactured foul does not create a disadvantage to the team who manufactured it, then we simply play on as per advantage rules”. However, in the context of manufactured “feet” (or at least some instances), I do wonder whether we shouldn’t be more ready to say that the attackers have not been disadvantaged because their player has given away possession / control rather than look at how the ball falls for the defender. Admittedly, the attacker is likely to get the benefit of any doubt but if the umpire is convinced that the play onto feet was not intended to be a “legitimate” attempt to progress an attack, shouldn’t umpires be prepared to adopt such an interpretation (even if the ball is subsequently falls under the control of the defender)?
redumpire At the risk of sounding peevish, does no one who supports strict adherence to the exact wording of the rules wish to answer this point? redumpire: said: Can I ask a question about the reverse situation? If a defender has the ball in a tight spot in the circle and deliberately plays the ball onto an attacker’s foot in an attempt to win a free hit and so get out of the tight spot, what do we think should be blown? I’m pretty sure I’d blow for a FHD 99% of the time….
If we’d blow a FHD 99% of the time in that situation (which I’m pretty sure we would), why wouldn’t we blow for a PC 99% of the time if the roles are reversed?
Jersey Jerry I do, Red. Factoring in the YHTBT, if the ball hits a defenders foot as a result of an attacker passing/dribbling/shooting its a FHA/PC. Thinking, as already stated, if the ball hadn’t hit the defenders foot, what would have happened? Only in the instances of a completely misplaced pass/shot, which hits a defenders foot some distance away and with no other attackers around, is it ‘play on.’ Kilmory Wishful thinking there Gold.
If the manufactured rule was removed because umpires couldn’t/wouldn’t enforce it then why should we think they will adopt your approach?
I only have the rules available to me, not high level briefings, but my personal opinion is the FIH bought in a rule that was not used by the majority of umpires and rather than just back down gracefully the FIH put in a meaningless explanation as to why it was removed.
It is obvious that the situation we are discussing with the “get something” foot in the D is NOT covered by the current rules, except that the defender will be penalised for playing the ball illegally. The fact that they did so unintentionally (and therefore not an offence) will happily be overlooked by umpires until that guidance is also removed.
And to answer Red’s post – Why would it not be play on? I’m all for equality. Cookie kaiwawao and deegum- what I don’t understand is why you think removal of the forced foul matters in the context of the ball hits foot debate. If you interpret 9.11 in strict terms with its guidance – ie the player only commits an offence if he voluntarily uses his foot – that isn’t an offence which can be manufactured. Its counter intuitive – I can’t force someone to do something voluntarily.
So the removal of the forced foul rule should have no impact on the consequence of how you umpire feet surely? Either you think the contact falls into the category of offence by the defender – in which case penalise if he gains an advantage – or you don’t in which case play on. Different people interpret the rule differently as to what constitutes voluntarily – but that is part of life – we all interpret events differently.
Gold
Kilmory said: Wishful thinking there Gold.
Agreed, Kilmory kaiwawao I feel most people here are ignoring my point in favour of what they imagine I wrote.
I am not disputing that the rule was changed nor do I blow manufactured fouls. The point I was making was this:
Nij made a statement that the rule was changed and the note in the rule book means that the FIH no longer want the forced foul rule in the game. My counter is that the note on the rule change does not make that point – it does not say that “some” or “many” offences that used to be penalised can be done under the current rules, it says:
“The rule… is deleted because any action of this sort can be dealt with under other Rules.
Clearly the action of playing the ball into the foot of an opponent who is not in breach of 9.11 cannot be penalised under any other Rules.
if you can get an official note from the Chair of FIH RC (or someone with the authority to speak on their behalf) to confirm that the forcing of a ball/body contact is not an offence I will happily accept that. I will not accept 2nd hand knowledge of unwritten tournament specific briefings passed on via a forum
Cookie
- it wouldn’t matter if that was how the rules were interpreted. Foot in the D = PC even when no advantage is gained is so ingrained that “gains benefit” should just be put back in the rules to make them logical and tie in with player expectations. Deleting it was a mistake and easy to rectify via changing the rule back or putting a clear reference on P1 of the book saying “read the umpire briefing for clarification on any query – it’s at www. whatever”
Gold Kaiawao, I agree with your analysis / comments about the 2011 rule changes and explanations. I consider the explanation to be lame but it seems that there was clear intention to change so that, by itself, a manufacturing of an offence would not be penalized. Some may regret this as it leaves little scope for the “brave” umpire to penalize such action but that seems to be the current position.
Diligent kaiwawao said: If you can get an official note from the Chair of FIH RC… I will happily accept that. I will not accept 2nd hand knowledge… passed on via a forum
What’s the chance of accepting an official note passed on via a forum? Your best route to happiness would seem to be 1:1, direct from the Chair of FIH RC.
jayjay kaiwawao said: “The rule… is deleted because any action of this sort can be dealt with under other Rules. Clearly the action of playing the ball into the foot of an opponent who is not in breach of 9.11 cannot be penalised under any other Rules.
aye, there’s the rub.
you have to get it out of your head that “dealt with” can be equalised with “penalised”. ANY action formerly penalised under the forced foul rule can now we dealt with by using other rules. sometimes that means penalising for an offence such as dangerous play, sometimes it means deciding there is no foul. that is also dealing with it under the rules, seeing as its the rules that tell us to play on.
i’m sorry if i have to disappoint you by saying that i wasn’t giving you unwritten tournament specific briefings As I told you, this isn’t even part of the briefing, and it most certainly is not tournament specific. i think you will be hard pressed to find an FIH umpire who has any doubts about this or is confused by the wording or sees any of the ambiguity some on these forms like to see.
I only have the rules available to me, not high level briefings Kilmory to be honest, you have the same info available as I do. the FIH UM briefing is available online. you might have less access to FIH UMs and umpires, but then again, there are some people on here who are FIH umpires and are in regular contact with FIH UMs and are happy to answer questions.
<rant> personally, i think its great that they share their experiences and are patient enough (well, mostly) to answer questions, even again and again, and i think it’s a right shame some people on here first refuse to hear what they have to say and then complain the FIH is withholding information or is not being clear enough about their intentions. that’s not a stab at anyone in particular, just me giving voice to my general frustration at some of these debates. yes, i think discussion and arguments are extremely beneficial and can be a great way of learning new things and challenging established views, but at some point it stops being constructive. and i think this discussion has long reached that point. and many others, who get dragged out of oblivion every so often to get rehashed once more. and why do we keep discussing? i think some, like me, are a little naive and hope that we might still persuade someone to our point of view. unfortunately, i’m more and more finding that some people’s opinions can’t be changed, no matter by how many valid arguments that can’t be disputed by anything else than “well, you’re wrong”. I think it’s a little sad that some people refuse to learn from what FIH umpires on here have to say about certain interpretations, but rather go round in circles complaining about the ambiguity or lack of clarity of something in the rule book, which really only is ambiguous or unclear to a minority of people involved (whether umpires, players or other people interested in the rules). however, i think that’s their loss. ultimately it might become a loss for this forum, if experienced umpires start disappearing out of frustration, and i understand that has happened in the past. sadly it will be most detrimental to the young or less experienced umpires who seek guidance from this forum. maybe thats the reason why some haven’t given up yet, who knows. </rant>
redumpire, alex.miles and keely like this.
alex.miles
Cheer up, jayjay I was stuck umpiring low level hockey before finding this forum. Keely was the UM at a tournament that was short for umpires, and so I contacted her through this forum. She said “As long as you’re honest with your questions and hear the answers, you’ll be a welcome addition to the team.” And so I umpired my first good tournament. I met two FIH umpires and an English Premier League umpire who could very well be FIH (all three have posted on this forum).
Now I’m a regular in my province’s top matches and have umpired the Bronze match at our Senior Men’s National Championships. I can honestly say that I would not be here today without this forum and the people on it like Keely. Some good does come out of this forum!
Diligent jayjay said: <rant>… some people on here …</rant>
Moderator’s note: The key ‘some people’ who trouble you were contacted by PM yesterday. It was made clear that FHF does not want the style of ‘debate’ that killed off HockeyWeb and Talking Hockey. Just so that they know that you know they’ve been warned.
jayjay alex.miles said: Cheer up jayjay
oh, i’m generally a very cheerful person. i was just expressing that my considerable patience is starting to wear down a bit. i know that there’s many people on here who generally want to learn, but those who don’t sometimes really do make it a bit frustrating. now, i love playing devil’s advocate as much as the next person, but sometimes it does get a bit much. sorry if i cam off a bit harsh.
deegum redumpire said: Can I ask a question about the reverse situation? If a defender has the ball in a tight spot in the circle and deliberately plays the ball onto an attacker’s foot in an attempt to win a free hit and so get out of the tight spot, what do we think should be blown? I’m pretty sure I’d blow for a FHD 99% of the time….
redumpire said: At the risk of sounding peevish, does no one who supports strict adherence to the exact wording of the rules wish to answer this point? I’m pretty sure you’d be incorrect a lot of the time.- Assuming it was the usual ” from 1/2 m” or so, or pushed practically all the way on to the foot. You can’t rule that UNAVOIDABLE contact is voluntary, Therefore there is no offence by (in this case) the attacker. Play on.. Or you could penalise the defence under:-
9.3 Players must not touch, handle or interfere with other players or their sticks or clothing.
An instance where the old “manufactured foul” would be useful, and not debatable, rather than using ” dealt with under other rules”
Refer jay’s post #38 ANY action formerly penalised under the forced foul rule can now we dealt with by using other rules.
I agree entirely. Please note, folks. If it was an offence under the “forced foul” rule it still is. -subject to any other rule changes since the deletion of the specific rule.
Diligent redumpire said: … does no one who supports strict adherence to the exact wording of the rules wish to answer this point? Deegum said: Please note, folks. If it was an offence under the “forced foul” rule it still is - subject to any other rule changes since the deletion of the specific rule.
Although I don’t support strict (blind) adherence to rules, preferring to go with fair play and consistency with the spirit of the rule, I will try to answer your point… again. Try thinking about it this way: re-read the 2011 guidance, not as “it still is under other Rules”, but “can be dealt with under other Rules”. That will allow you to join the many other umpires worldwide in allowing that, in a few situations, the outcome without a ‘forced offence’ rule is different from the outcome with a ‘forced offence’ rule. Just before that, at the bottom of page 4, the 2011 book explains that the changes “seek to simplify the game without altering its fundamental characteristics”. Removing the ‘forced offence’ freed the umpire to simply judge ‘foot’ or ‘danger’, without delving into the complexity of a player’s motives or options, or into the complexity of the notes to each rule. Most younger players didn’t know there was a forced foul rule anyway, only becoming aware when an umpire used it for a ‘Gotcha!’. The game has carried on as if the ‘forced offence’ never existed. The fundamental characteristics have not altered. The rule change found what was sought.
Deegum
and I’ll have to try to explain it , Again!
Diligent said in a few situations, the outcome without a ‘forced offence’ rule is different from the outcome with a ‘forced offence’ rule. But apparently, the outcome is different in almost all situations where the ” forced foul” rule would have applied -IMO
Unfortunately, Diligent, you are still left with:
delving into the complexity of a player’s motives or options
as you have to, for instance, decide if a player ” voluntarily” or otherwise, permitted ball/body contact
Without delving
into the complexity of the notes to each rule
I would have thought the intention of the notes in general were to, and generally do, make the rule(s) clearer, not more complex.
re-read the 2011 guidance, not as “it still is under other Rules”,
I suggest that folk should ” re-read the Introduction to the 2011 rules ,” Rule changes” section as written”, since it is likely the rules board meant what they said.
any action of this sort (ed: “forcing”) can be dealt with under other Rules.
Why should the note say that a non offence can be ” dealt with” under other rules? Perhaps because it is an offence?
BTW, I am trying very very hard to be polite and watching my phraseology. So, as far as I know I am committing / giving no offence in this post.
Kilmory deegum said: BTW, I am trying very very hard to be polite and watching my phraseology. So, as far as I know I am committing / giving no offence in this post.
Agreed, but you are trying to flog a dead horse!
Please leave it. We all recognise the point you are trying to make, the majority will never agree with you though. There is absolutely no point repeating the same thing over and over again in the hope that something will change. If you always do what you always did, you’ll always get what you always got. And no – that is not an invitation to change the words slightly but make the same point.
Dan Quinton said: Unfortunately Justin’s thread on ‘foot in the D not always being a PC’ is no longer open to replies – hence a new thread.
And now this one is going the same way. I’ll be very disappointed if another thread is opened to discuss this same topic.
****************
Makes one wonder why the FIH Rules Committee bother to compose Rules and publish them in a rule book, doesn’t it ?
There was of course no proposal during this ‘web debate’ to discuss restoring or substituting an amended version of either the offence of forcing or the gains benefit exception clause, as the making of suggestions concerning changes to Rule or Rule Guidance is forbidden on this website – as is any discussion of the way the Rules of Hockey have been written previously.
The difference between a Rule and a Tournament Variation. Tournament regulations.
The first words in the current Rules of Hockey
Responsibility and Liability Participants in hockey must be aware of the Rules of Hockey and of other information in this publication. They are expected to perform according to the Rules.
The first part of a recent FIH Execuitive ‘announcement’ published on the FIH website.
The FIH Executive Board held one of its three annual meetings last weekend in Lausanne. It was the first time that the board had met since the elections of the new members at the FIH Congress in Kuala Lumpur last November and several items were on the agenda during the busy two days.
Most notably, the Executive Board decided to implement a 45-second shot clock for all penalty corners. After seeing that the time taken for penalty corners was gradually increasing, the Executive Board felt this was an important measure to speed up the game while still giving teams enough time to prepare for penalty corners. The rule is set to take effect in time for the Women’s Hockey World League Round 4 tournament in Argentina.
That announcement caused some confusion because the Rules Of hockey cannot be changed before the issue of the next rule book in 2015. WHWL Round 4 is in November 2013. It turns out that this announcement concerns an additional Tournament Regulation applicable only at FIH International Tournaments and is not a Rule of hockey, such that all participants need be aware of. The FIH Executive did not communicate correctly.
The misunderstanding caused became a spat on a hockey related website.
“Of course it does, as evidenced by the original post on this thread. When an announcement’s wording is somewhat ambiguous like it is here, having experience with years of rules and regulation changes at the FIH level helps establish context and the obviously not-so-common sense that informs the conclusion reached by posters other than you on this question.”
Well. There you are then. I don’t know what at the FIH level means even though, having been involved in both hockey stick manufacturer and coaching of International teams, I have years of experience of changes made to the FIH Rules of Hockey and also to Tournament Regulations, but it flows quite well and there are lots of words used.
I guess that participants need not worry about understanding the Rules of Hockey as long as they are aware that there are some and also know that there are kindly people who will sometimes give their opinion of the meaning and purpose of them – if asked very nicely. These opinions might in some instances turn out to be accurate, once unraveled and translated into Plain English, but in most cases I wouldn’t put any money on it: there not much evidence of participants performing according to the published Rules of Hockey at present.
.
The cause of this particular break down in communication doesn’t require years of experience of rules and regulation change at FIH level to solve. All the necessary information, including a copy of the current Tournament Regulations is to be found on the FIH website. The new additional tournament regulation will take effect before the Women’s Hockey World League Round 4 tournament in Argentina in November 2013.
.
It is good that the FIH Executive pay attention these things, even if not very carefully, but it’s similar to putting a new door-bell on a house that has sinking foundations and a leaky roof, useful but not a priority.
A question asked on a hockey related website. …an attacker aims to cross the ball into the circle and it either jams off a defenders stick attempting to make a tackle or raises off another player (defender) further away and the result is the ball looping up into a crowded circle. ……………………… Free Hit or Penalty corner?
An opinion and advice given by a senior umpire. An aerial is a pass. An inadvertent deflection is not. Please don’t apply the aerial rules to every instance of a ball in the air because that is absolutely not the intended use of the rule.
The Rule.
9.10 Players must not approach within 5 metres of an opponent receiving a falling raised ball until it has been received, controlled and is on the ground.
The initial receiver has a right to the ball. If it is not clear which player is the initial receiver, the player of the team which raised the ball must allow the opponent to receive it.
I disagree with the advice given. This is a Rule designed to prevent dangerous play when the ball is in the air and falling, whether or not the ball has been passed from one player to another, or is intended as a pass, is irrelevant.
It’s not a well written Rule because every ball which is raised to any height will fall and there is no indication of the height the ball must reach before the rule comes into force, but general practice seems to be that the Rule applies to a ball falling from above shoulder height, commonly from well above head height.
There is no indication of horizontal distance travelled either or of the method of propulsion, so the ball could be scooped 50m or more or could go almost straight up and down again as a result of a deflection – there is no mention of intent. It is not, on the other hand, so badly written that the above advice could be inferred as true from what is given, there is no ambiguity other than the relevant height.
There is no indication within the Rule that it refers to a ball deliberately passed with a scoop or lob or flick, what are commonly referred to as aerial balls when the ball is raised over distance – and usually considerably above shoulder height. The term ‘aerial’ does not appear in the Rules of Hockey at all.
This same umpire was advising another questioner, a few months ago, “The aerial Rules do not apply to a shot on goal“. I can’t see any grounds for that deduction either. It is unwise, even pernicious, for a senior umpire to offer personal opinion of dubious truth, which might be taken as official FIH Rule Guidance, when it is no such thing: in fact the advice given is the opposite of what a reasonable person would deduce from the wording of the Rule.
I deduce from the Rule wording.
When there is a deflection of the ball up off a defender’s stick and it loops into a crowded circle from outside the circle, play must be stopped if the ball is going to fall among players who might contest for it, but I can’t see an offence there. There are two incidents of poor skill; the attacker played the ball too close to the defender, so the defender got a stick on it but failed to stop the ball. Neither is an offence, a bully seems correct.
If a deflected ball is falling to a player of either team in space inside the circle and there is no danger directly from the flight of from the deflection, then the only thing that might give rise to penalty is an encroachment infraction. Depending on which side is doing the encroaching, a free ball or a penalty stroke should be awarded (with a card in both cases).
Timing of the whistle is very important. The umpire needs to wait to see if danger is likely to develop – if not the whistle is not necessary the game can continue – if yes, then the potential danger must not be allowed to actually occur.
“Fouls occur only when the offending team gains an advantage or dangerous play occurs”.
The word ‘foul’ can be replaced with ‘offence’ as meaning the same thing: ’foul’ is not a term used in the current FIH rule-book or any previous one.
Now look at what the Rules of Hockey have (and had) to ‘say’ on the subject.
First:- What is an offence? Offence. An action contrary to the Rules which may be penalised by an umpire. (no definition was given prior to 2004)
Now note the similarities on the subject between the Rules of Hockey prior to the 1995 rewrite and in the periods 1995 -2004 and 2004 – to date.
Rules of Hockey 2004 - 2013
12 Penalties
12.1 Advantage : a penalty is awarded only when a player or team has been disadvantaged by an opponent breaking the Rules.
If awarding a penalty is not an advantage to the team which did not break the Rules, play must continue.
Rules of Hockey 1995 – 2004
14 PENALTIES
Advantage : a penalty shall be awarded only when a player or team has been clearly disadvantaged by an opponent’s offence.
Rules of Hockey prior to 1995
UMPIRES SHALL REFRAIN FROM ENFORCING A PENALTY IN CASES WHERE THEY ARE SATISFIED THAT BY ENFORCING IT AN ADVANTAGE WOULD BE GIVEN TO THE OFFENDING TEAM.
ADVICE TO UMPIRES
an umpire must never allow an advantage to be gained by a breach of the Rules.
It is a mistaken, idea that it is the duty of an umpire to penalise every breach of the Rules, as this may cause undue delay and irritation. When no advantage results to the offender, it is unnecessary for an umpire to penalise minor infringements.
Okay? Now the first question.
1) What are the two subjects mentioned in all of these sections of the variously dated rule-books?
The second question.
2) Is the subject of the quotation with which I started this article the same as the subjects referred to in the various rule-books?
3) Is there a relevant topic not mentioned?
4) Is breaking a Rule (a breach of Rule) always an offence?
**********************
1) What are the two subjects mentioned in all of these sections of the variously dated rule-books?
Offence and penalty. Specifically the circumstances in which an umpire must not penalise an offence with a team penalty. Following an offence if the team offended against can play on (are not disadvantaged) – which means if the possibility of developing their play is no worse than it was before the offence – then the umpire must allow play to continue. It’s odd that the umpire has to make a subjective judgement about disadvantage which then compels her or him to act in a certain way, but that is what the advice/instruction requires.
2) Is the subject of the quotation the same as the subjects referred to in the various rule-books?
“Fouls occur only when the offending team gains an advantage or dangerous play occurs”.
There are several subjects. The easy one first (leaving aside syntax difficulties) Dangerous play is always an offence. True.
Which leaves this:- Fouls occur only when the offending team gains an advantage., which is a nonsense.
An offence is always an offence – advantage and/or disadvantage to either team is completely irrelevant to the fact that an offence has occurred. The fact of offence does not depend on the gaining of an advantage by the team committing the offence. From Terminology An Offence is An action contrary to the Rules which may be penalised by an umpire. (see [1] above) -
3) Is there a relevant topic not mentioned?
No, but there is an irrelevant topic that is mentioned. That is gaining an advantage, “gains advantage”, commonly expressed as ‘gains benefit’. Offences are not caused by or the result of gaining an advantage from an action that is contrary to Rule (a breach of Rule). An offence is an offence whether or not a team or personal advantage is gained by the offender. Naturally, gaining an advantage from an action does not create an offence if the action itself is not an offence and perhaps less intuitively, gaining an advantage from an action that is a breach of Rule does not create an offence if the action itself is not an offence.
4) Is breaking a Rule (a breach of Rule) always an offence?
No. There are several Rules outside of Conduct of Play which simply require correction (blood on the playing uniform is one example). Within Conduct of Play, the ball/body contact Rule gives us a clear example.
A breach of Rule 9.11 Field players must not stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their body. is not necessarily an offence and this is clearly stated in the Rule Guidance. It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player
Such action is not an offence unless the action is made voluntarily: - The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball or
or intentionally :- or if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way.
What is being mixed here “Fouls occur only when the offending team gains an advantage” the need for an umpire to stop play and penalise when an offence occurs if and only if the team offended against cannot play on (are disadvantaged by the offence) – is being confused with the opposing team gaining an advantage from an unintended breach of Rule - an exception to this Guidance to Rule 9.11. The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ballwhich at one time made an unintended ball/body (a breach of Rule) an offence if an unfair benefit was gained by the team of the player hit with the ball. This exception, having been deleted, no longer applies.
A player in possession of the ball deliberately plays the ball at the feet of a close opponent. The ball hits the opponent’s foot and rebounds to a position where the opponent (or a team-mate of the opponent) can collect it.
Decision. “Play on”. The removal of forcing as an offence in itself does not change the fact that a forced contact (one not made voluntarily by the player hit with the ball) is not an offence. The fact that team of the player hit with the ball then gains possession of it (an advantage) is irrelevant.
Example 2.
A player in possession of the ball attempts to play a pass through the position of an opposing defender. The defender is unable to avoid being hit with the ball. The ball rebounds to a position where the opponent (or a team-mate of the opponent) can collect it.
Decision “Play on” Unless the foot/ball contact is made voluntarily (the defender could choose whether or not to be hit with the ball and made the choice to intercept the ball with the body) there is no offence. An umpire cannot penalise unless it is clear that such a choice was voluntarily made – that is must not penalise just because a ball/foot contact has occurred -even if the team of the player hit gain an advantage from the contact.
Players in possession of the ball should be made aware, if they don’t already know it, that:-
1) playing the ball at an opponent’s foot, although no longer an offence, is not going to ‘win’ them a penalty against the opponent if the opponent is hit with the ball, therefore they must use such tactics – if they are used at all – in a way that ensures they do not lose the ball. a player cannot just stop playing because he or she has succeeded in forcing a foot/ball contact from an opponent and
2) A ‘pass’ made at an opponent is in fact a pass to an opponent. A pass should by-pass an opponent (‘pass’ is a shortening of by-pass - as in “The by-pass road goes around a town, not through it”.), a (by)pass attempted ’through’ the feet, legs or body of an opponent is not a (by)pass at all.
(This is very old ‘theory’. The oldest book on how to play hockey I have in my possession The Theory and Practice of Hockey, written by the former New Zealand Captain, Cyril Walters and published in 1966. He described playing the ball to a position within reach of opponents as one of the greatest ‘crimes’ a player can commit. Walters cited two causes of the ‘crime’, poor ball-pace and poor direction. Under-hitting the ball (which is what he was referring to) is not a common problem these days -rather the reverse – but the points he made about ball-pace and direction are as relevant today as when they were written).
The emphasis must be on the skills of dribbling and passing to create the time and space for shooting opportunities – not on ‘winning’ penalties after failing to elude an opponent.
.
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.
.
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.
Field Hockey Rules, Turning, Ball shielding, Obstruction.
Edited 1st February 2013
.
Here is part an not uncommon account by a former player, who took up umpiring full-time after a long break from the game, having previously ‘dabbled’ at umpiring over a number of years.
I first umpired back in 1975 for a friendly game between 2 hospital teams. Over the intervening years I’ve umpired on a part-time basis at club level whilst still playing. Having had a break from hockey (work, marriage and family) I returned in 1999 when my eldest son started playing. I figured the quickest way to learn the new rules (no offside, no turning obstruction , etc) was to pass my Level 1; which I did. From then until 3 seasons ago I played and usually umpired a club match as well every Saturday. The last 2 seasons I’ve become a full-time umpire doing mainly club matches
.
This caught my attention – naturally.
I figured the quickest way to learn the new rules (no offside, no turning obstruction , etc) was to pass my Level 1; which I did.
The apparent absence of an Obstruction Rule, related to ball shielding by turning on the ball, is seen by this poster in the same way as the deletion of the off-side Rule. How can that be ?
How did he pass an umpiring Level 1 around 1999 if he believed there was then no Rule concerning ”turning obstruction” ?
This may not have been uncommon at the time because of the convoluted Interpretation given in the rule book, which caused much confusion, but it should not still be the case. In an attempt to make clear that ‘turning’, as it is commonly called, was and still is an obstructive offence, a clause relating specifically to this action (a player in possession of the ball moving to position the body between the ball and an opponent) was added to the Obstruction Rule in 2009. It was the only addition to the Rules of Hockey in that year, so difficult to miss, but most umpires apparently managed to do so – or were told to ignore it. (many if not most umpires had given up on trying to make sense of what was called the PIT interpretation)
(that, incidentally, was the year the ‘gains benefit’ clause – the one umpires still insist on applying - was clearly definitely not going to be returned to the Rules of Hockey, despite its retention during 2007-2009 due to a ‘FIH note’ issued within a month of its initial deletion from the 2007 rule book – again umpires are following verbal instruction rather than observing the deletion. The deletion should not have been made, there should instead have been amendment to the Guidance: but that is another story ) http://wp.me/pKOEk-xj
Here is the current Obstruction Rule with the embedded Guidance (except for that relating to third-party, which is omitted for brevity). The part in red bold is the clause extension added in 2009.
9.12 Players must not obstruct an opponent who is attempting to play the ball.
Players obstruct if they :
– back into an opponent
– physically interfere with the stick or body of an opponent
– shield the ball from a legitimate tackle with their stick or any part of their body.
A stationary player receiving the ball is permitted to face in any direction.
A player with the ball is permitted to move off with it in any direction except bodily into an opponent or into a position between the ball and an opponent who is within playing distance of the ball and attempting to play it.
I think it common sense to interpret “ a player in possession of the ball…. is permitted to move off with it in any direction except…..into a a position between the ball and an opponent….etc” as a prohibition on turning, on or with the ball, to position the body to shield the ball from an opponent who is in a balanced position, demonstrating an intention to play it and is within playing reach of it, in other words, but for the positioning of the body by the ball holder an opponent would be able to play at the ball immediately (‘but for the positioning of the body by the ball holder an opponent would be able to play at the ball immediately‘ is as concise a ‘rule of thumb’ definition of ‘obstructed’as I have been able to find in previous FIH publications and it is still relevant and useful as a heuristic when the tacker is his own goal side of the ball). I would be interested to learn of other possible interpretation of the words of the expanded clause taken together with ‘attempting to play at the ball’ and ‘within playing distance’ .
Is obstruction difficult for players to cope with? Yes it is, it demands some skill. In order to comply with the Rules players have to develop the skills necessary to face and ‘take on’ opponents or move the ball or move with the ball to keep it out of the reach of opponents – doing these things well results in ’game flow’ and that is one of the most attractive features of good hockey. An analogy of the difficulty could be taken from tennis. The sever in tennis is at a disadvantage until he learns to serve well consistently, then he has the advantage rather than a disadvantage when it is his serve. In hockey the tackler has a distinct advantage until the novice becomes competent in ball control and dribbling: then the ball holder has the advantage. With skilled players, without proper enforcement of the Obstruction Rule – and with physical contact prohibited (Rule 9.13) – an opponent trying to tackle for the ball is unfairly disadvantaged.
That there is now no Rule prohibiting shielding of the ball is presently a notion as widely, but wrongly accepted or unchallenged *, as the oft repeated but also incorrect ‘mantra’ – ”an on target shot at the goal cannot be dangerous play” and “any ball/foot contact will be of benefit to the player hit – or disadvantages opponents “- (and is therefore an offence and should be penalised – unless opponents can play on with advantage). Such disinformation is wrong and pernicious, where does it come from? It is certainly not from the current Rules of Hockey.
*(Many umpires are unable to describe an incident of obstruction – without physical contact – that they would penalise ; they don’t know what it is they should be looking for as a breach of the Rule)
The only difference between the Obstruction Rule we now have and that of 1975, is that now a player in the act of receiving the ball (generally from the his rear, the direction of his own defence) – and shielding it from a marker – who is within playing distance of the ball – while doing so, is given leeway to take the ball into control before moving away with it. i.e. he is not, as he would have been prior to 1993, obstructing immediately an opponent demonstrates the direct path to the ball is blocked by the player in possession of the ball and a tackle attempt is being prevented.
On the other hand, a player who is in controlled possession of the ball, who turns to position his body between the ball and an opponent within playing distance of the ball, to prevent a tackle attempt, is obstructing immediately he does so - or obstructs jf he does not, having so turned to that position, immediately move off with the ball – or pass it away – that is moves away or passes away before an opponent intent on tackling for the ball comes within playing distance of it and attempts to play the ball.
In effect a player may receive the ball, even in a stationary position and is then “permitted to move off with it“, that is move away to put and keep the ball beyond the reach of an opponent – but may not otherwise shield the ball to prevent a tackle attempt. Such shielding frustrates a tackler and greatly increases the possibility of a contact offence.
In practice a receiver is not now required to make a lead run when closely marked to ‘lose’ his marker and make time and space in which to receive the ball, as was generally necessary up until 1992/3, unless he was already in free space. This facility to receive the ball in a protected way enabled the tactical development of the game (particularly the back -pass) and reduced the number of obstruction offences ‘called’, (as well as reducing physical contact by tacklers), but it was not intended to allow the now common stationary ball shielding, ‘turning’ ’crabbing’ and ‘dawdling’ on the ball in blocking positions – by players already in controlled possession of the ball – which so mar the modern game, sometimes even at the top levels.
What has now gone – in two stages, 2001 and 2004 – (and ‘good riddance’ to it) – is the ridiculous ”onus on the tackler” …..” to be in and if necessary to move to a position from which a legitimate tackle may be attempted“ which effectively made obstruction by a ball holder who was shielding the ball in a stationary or near stationary position (usually slowly weaving from side to side), while moving the ball, a near impossibility, because a legitimate tackling position could never be achieved, as continual re-positioning of the ball or body to maintain shielding (i.e. obstruction) prevented it. (That there was an ’onus’ or responsibility on players in possession of the ball not to obstruct an opponent within playing distance of the ball and intent on tackling was not mentioned in this interpretation of the Obstruction Rule). Opponents who could not tackle because they were blocked off from the ball were said in effect not to be obstructed, because they were unable to circumvent the blocking player to play at the ball without physical contact with the ball-holder – but the fact that they were obliged to circumvent a player blocking the direct path to the ball in order to attempt a tackle meant that they were obstructed – a conundrum.
Despite the impossible situation it created, this ‘onus on the tackler’ (but not, strangely, on the player in possession of the ball) is what umpire coaches, who ‘did’ their Rules at the time that that obstruction interpretation was extant, are still passing on - in spite of the complete removal of it from the Rules of Hockey nine years ago. The current obstruction Rule is exactly as it was in 1992/3 (when leeway for a receiving player was added), except for the addition of the 2009 clause (on a ball holder positioning the body between an opponent and the ball).
It’s much easier, however, to umpire and be consistent when obstructive play is ignored, as the necessary judgements, of timing and distance, are often difficult. (To get an idea of the difficulties consider what a ‘pig’s ear’ umpires make of judging 5m, especially from distance and with a foreshorten view, when dealing with the quickly taken self-pass and retreating defenders – which difficulties umpires have ironically have invited on themselves by ‘interpretation’). But what could be more consistent than doing nothing about obstructive play? A great way to achieve ‘Rule change’ and consistency – just ignore the Rule.
It seems that all a new umpire (or a player) has to do to know the Rules these days is to know which deletions are still in fact regarded as being ‘on foot’ and what new interpretations or Guidance inventions have arisen since the last FIH Tournament – and they will be told what these are as and when the information is ‘cascaded’ : gossip rules. What is actually written in the published Rules of Hockey can often be ‘safely’ ignored – and in some areas, such as ball/body contact, dangerous play and obstruction, it generally is.
How often are we to hear the excuse ”No, I agree that is not what it says in the rule book but that is the way I have been coached to umpire.” and why is that?
I find it very counterproductive when people keep bringing up the “shot striking a defender closer than 5 meter above the knee is dangerous” rule, as this ONLY applies to (otherwise legitimately) raised balls on the goal at a PC. this does not apply in other situations.
what is true, however, is that danger depends on the skill level of those involved.
The above are comments posted by an umpire on an Internet hockey forum thread about the raising of the ball high at another player in the outfield – specifically the scooping of the ball at or very close to an opponent who is closing on the player in possession. The initial poster had, rightly, made the observation that the introduction of the facility to directly lift the ball from a free should have reduced or eliminated such incidents (because an opponent could not encroach within 5m before a scoop was made from a free ball). It was pointed out however that there is nothing to prohibit a self-pass being followed immediately with a scoop pass and scoops are also made in open play.
This umpire’s comments are however misguided and misguidance. It is true that the first hit shot at the goal at a penalty corner cannot be scored from if raised above knee height (460mm), and if a raised shot, however made, hits a defender who is within 5m of the ball, above knee height then a free ball will be (or should be) awarded to the defending team (in fact a free should be awarded to the defence if an out-runner evades a shot raised above 460mm to avoid being hit with the ball) and, conversely, a player hit below the knee with a first shot at the goal will be penalised with the award of another penalty corner. But, according to the provided Rule Guidance (Rule 9.9), if, in open play, a ball is raised to any height towards an opponent who is within 5m that is considered dangerous play.
These are the two Rules concerning dangerous playing of the ball ( I will leave aside here consideration of the falling aerial pass).
Rule 9.8. Players must not play the ball dangerously or in a way which leads to dangerous play. A ball is considered dangerous when it causes legitimate evasive action by players.
Which (oddly) says nothing about either height or distance or about velocity in relation to a dangerously played ball (there is no cut-off distance beyond which dangerous playing of the ball at an opponent is not a possibility i.e. legitimate evasive action is not distance limited)
and
The Guidance embedded with Rule 9.9, (a Rule which concerns the intentional raising of the ball with a hit).
Rule 9.9 Players must not intentionally raise the ball from a hit except for a shot at goal.
A raised hit must be judged explicitly on whether or not it is raised intentionally. It is not an offence to raise the ball unintentionally from a hit, including a free hit, anywhere on the fi eld unless it is dangerous.
If the ball is raised over an opponent’s stick or body on the ground, even within the circle, it is permitted unless judged to be dangerous.
Players are permitted to raise the ball with a flick or scoop provided it is not dangerous. A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous.(my underlining. This ‘remnant’ is all that is left of the Rule:- A player shall not raise the ball at another player.,which was in the rule book until the ‘simplification and clarification’ of the Rules in 2004 )
If an opponent is clearly running into the shot or into the attacker without attempting to play the ball with their stick, they should be penalised for dangerous play. (my bold and underling. This conflicting clause was added to the Rules of Hockey before the Athens Olympics following the tactics of the Korean team in a previous Tournament when defending a penalty corner. It has ‘expanded’ to the point where no ‘on target’ shot at the goal is considered dangerous and closing down on a shooter from within the goal at a penalty corner is seen – ‘interpreted’ -as an offence, irrespective or an attempt to use the stick to intercept the ball. The concept has been encapsulated in the jargon ‘Suicide runner’ – which removes the need to explain any ‘offence’. )
Why direction to players and umpires concerning a flick or scoop towards an opponent should be given in a Rule about the intentional raising of the ball with a hit is a mystery. What should be noticed however is that there is no reference to the height of the ball in this Rule Guidance – In Rule 9.8 the embedded Guidance refers to a subjective judgement, the legitimacy of evasive action, in Rule 9.9.the embedded Guidance refers to objective criteria, 1) raised ball 2) towards an opponent who is 3) within 5m
The knee height allowance for a shot towards a player in the penalty corner situation is actually greater than should be generally allowed in open play incidents. (The UMB advises umpires that a ball “below half-shin pad height” is not dangerous; it must be taken from that advice that a ball which is above half-shin pad height – i.e. 25cms – 30cms and towards another player within 5m is to be considered dangerous or may be considered dangerous). The comment in the first paragraph above says nothing either way, only that the Rules concerning the penalty corner (sic first hit shot at goal) do not apply in other situations, but the inference seems to be that ‘knee height’ applies only in the penalty corner situation and there is otherwise no height restriction on a ball propelled towards another player i.e. the matter of danger is entirely a matter of umpire judgement (of legitimate evasive action) alone.
In fact the opposite is nearer the truth, the Rule Guidance about a dangerously played ball is more severe in open play than it is in relation to the first hit shot at a penalty corner – not less so – any lifting of the ball towards a close opponent is considered dangerous play. It is as likely that ball velocity will be a consideration as it is that ball height may be in judging the legitimacy of any evasive action taken, but nowhere is ball velocity mentioned in the Rules (except perhaps that a forehand edge hit may not be ‘hard’ or a goalkeeper may not propel a ball ‘forcefully’ with a hand protector).
It is strange that the Guidance to Rule 9.8. – on legitimate evasive action – is noted ( even if generally ignored) but participants seem to be unaware of the Guidance to Rule 9.9. concerning the flicking or scooping a ball towards another player who is within 5m of the ball (it is even stranger that in a Rule that is about the raising of the ball with a hit and in which dangerous play is described the raising the ball with a hit at an opponent is not mentioned. Perhaps it is assumed, by common sense, that a raised hit at a close player will be considered dangerous play, because a flick towards a close opponent is so considered ?)
There are a few other oddities arising from the Guidance to Rule 9.9. Take this for example:-
It is not an offence to raise the ball unintentionally from a hit, including a free hit, anywhere on the field unless it is dangerous.
and note the similarity to this (from Rule 9.11 – the ball/body contact Rule) :-
It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a fi eld player. The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball or if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way.
then consider the difference in the way the Guidance about an unintentionally raised hit – and even a deliberately raised hit, that is not a shot at the goal, is applied, compared with the way Guidance concerning unintentional ball/body contacts is applied.
Then there is this Rule Guidance:-
If an opponent is clearly running into the shot or into the attacker without attempting to play the ball with their stick, they should be penalised for dangerous play. itis the only Guidance repeated in the Rules of Hockey, it also appears in the Rules concerning the penalty corner. Like the Guidance to the ball/body contact Rule (where intent is overlooked), a vital part of it is generally ignored i.e. -without attempting to play the ball with their stick. There is no Rule or Guidance that states that a player cannot close on an opponent in possession of the ball from anywhere on the pitch (including directly from within the goal during a penalty corner). The Rule Guidance is aimed specifically at players who deliberately use their bodies to intercept the ball, not at players who attempt to play the ball with the stick, but this Guidance is so badly applied that a myth that it is an offence to run from the center of the goal towards a shooter in possession of the ball has become deeply entrenched in the ‘mindset’ of not only players but many umpires too.
The second comment
what is true, however, is that danger depends on the skill level of those involved.
It is NOT true that danger depends on the skill level of those involved. People have come to accept such nonsense without thinking about what the statement means, in the same way that they accept that 2+2 =4, it is simply learned or accepted without reflection. Close examination of danger depends on the skill level of those involved in the context of a principal of Rule application, reveals that the statement must be a fallacy because it states in effect that skilled players cannot ever be endangered by any ball that is propelled at them. Responsibility for causing endangerment is also taken from the player propelling the ball and laid on the player the ball is propelled at – not at all what the Rules of Hockey require.
What is true is that experienced and alert defenders may be able to avoid or even play with the stick, balls that have been played at them in a way that endangers them, i.e. forces self-defence to avoid injury – and it is also true that a necessary act of evasion is supposed to define a dangerously played ball. What is being asserted is that skilled players do not need in any circumstances to evade a ball that is propelled at them or if they do evade the ball then the ball could not have been propelled in a dangerous way. That is obviously a nonsense as it is an inversion of the definition of a dangerously played ball and there are also plenty of examples of highly skilled players being injured with the ball they have been unable to evade or to play. But, if legitimate evasive action is to be removed as as a valid criteria for dangerous play, which is what the ‘skill level’ statement implies, something has to be put in its place when a ball is raised at high velocity at another player - from both within and beyond beyond 5m of that player. The alternative is to declare that players cannot be endangered by a ball propelled towards them from beyond 5m (which is close to the current attitude) and also to go along with the idea that skillful players cannot be endangered in any circumstances. In the circumstances being commented upon (a player closing on another who flicks or scoops the ball towards the closing player) the Guidance embedded in Rule 9.9 should be a sufficient safeguard, but it cannot be if it is ignored.
A ball that is propelled at high velocity high into the body (or at the head) of any player, no matter how skilled that player may be, will endanger that player (put her or him at risk of injury). That the player so endangered has the skill or the luck to avoid injury does not make the play of the player who propelled the ball ‘non-dangerous’. That skilled players cannot be endangered by a ball raised at them is part of the same flawed ‘logic’ that declares that a shot at the goal cannot be dangerous play and obviously makes no sense.
Such nonsense – if accepted – is counter productive in that it prevents a clear understanding and application of Rules, but then so too is the confusing way in which Rules concerning dangerous play are set out in the Rules of Hockey: the present confusing statements do not produce a clear understanding of what is written or of the intent of the Rule.
There is a reliance on the ‘common sense’ (‘interpretation’ and subjective judgement) of umpires, but there is no more evidence that umpires have a common sense of what is dangerous play (or even that they are aware of A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous.) or that they will apply their ‘common sense’, than there is that players will play responsibly and with regard for the safety of other players. There are many who say that the above mentioned concepts of dangerous play are outdated or outmoded and that we should “move on”, but this Rule Guidance is in the current (2013-15) Rules of Hockey, and it is never made clear by the people who advocate ‘moving on’ what it is we should ‘move on’ to. They are unable to or won’t put a description of what they want – and are applying – in writing, if players are to remain responsible, as they must be, for actions they take that endanger other players the requirements need to be clearly explained.
For the moment I would rather that a ball raised to knee height or above and at a player within 5m of the ball at the time it was raised, should be considered dangerous, than rely on the notion that danger depends of the skill level of the players involved and that there is no limit on the ball raised at an opponent in open play – especially as the skill seems to be demanded only from the player the ball is raised at, not from the player propelling the ball.
The interpretation of A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous cannot be that a ball raised at a close opponent cannot be dangerous or that “dangerous” or “endangered” depends on skill levels. It is certainly true that the Rule Guidance embedded in Rule 9.9. is so severe, especially as neither height or velocity are mentioned, that most umpires will refuse to enforce it – hence the advice from the UMB that a ball below half-shin pad height is not dangerous (no distance or velocity mentioned) – but to deduce from this advice that there is no height criteria at all in the judgement of ‘dangerous’ outside the penalty corner demonstrates a lack of both knowledge and of common sense – it is a leap from one extreme to another – not sensible at all.
The need for the introduction of clear height criterion for use in the judgement of the raised ball, be it from within 5m of an opponent or from beyond 5m of an opponent, coupled with advice concerning velocity and the propensity of the ball to cause injury or force self-defence if it is propelled at another player, is obvious. This has been stated many times; such a statement was contained in the first sentence of Umpire Coaching document on the raised ball produced in 2001 by John Gawley (then a Level 3 Umpire Coach). The revised document (2005), despite what is given in the UBM, contains exactly the same advice.
No player should ever be put into a position of self-defence against a ball put into the air at any height, be it 15 or 50 centimeters.
The present conflicts are clear, what is to be done to resolve them is not – at the moment it looks as if that will be nothing at all.
Field Hockey Rules. Voluntarily playing the ball with the body.
A small but representative sample of current umpiring practice in the application of Rule Guidance to Rule 9.11.
Rule 9.11 Field players must not stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their body.
Any ball/body contact will be a breach of this Rule but such contact is only a Breach of Rule, not an Offence, unless the contact is made in a way that conforms with the conditions given in the Rule Guidance – voluntarily played with the body or (the very odd) positioned with the intention of playing the ball with the body.
I don’t understand why a) voluntarily played with the body and b) positioned with the intention of playing the ball with the body. are both given. If the ball isintentionally played with the body the player must have been positioned where that could happen and if the player positions the body with the intention of playing the ball with the body that must be done voluntarily. If the ball is not played with the body that cannot be an Offence or even a Breach of the Rule – even if there was an intention to play the ball with the body. I do not see how therefore the positioning of a player or even positioning with intent to make a ball/body contact can be considered a ball contact Offence or even a Breach of Rule 9.11., in and of itself. (Positioning Offences generally relate to Rule 9.12. Obstruction)
Rule Guidance. It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player. The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball or if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way.
The Rule and the embedded Rule Guidance are to be read together as a whole, not in isolation from each other.
Current application appears to follow part of the following advice (gleaned from UK County Umpires Association Handbook in 2011):- “The notes to the foot body rule 9.11 say it is an offence ‘only’ when contact with the ball is ‘voluntary’, but in practice an accidental contact that alters the balance of play is just as much an offence as deliberately playing with foot or body.
This is just one example of interpreting rules consistently with your partner and with other umpires the teams will have. Sometimes their interpretation will differ from how the rule seems, to you, to read. But you must umpire play their way, and never apply your own version. If that leaves you uncomfortable then a bit of lateral thinking should soon enough make the same sense of it for you as it does for everyone else.”
That and similar such advice is not followed exactly, umpires often go beyond it. Even contact forced by an opponent or accidental contact, where there is clearly no advantage gained by the player hit with the ball, is generally penalised ‘automatically’ – this has become a reflex action, not a judgement.
Umpires who at first feel that the ‘interpretation’ applied by ‘everyone’ is unfair or contrary to the Rules of Hockey or contrary to common sense are told :- “Sometimes their interpretation will differ from how the rule seems, to you, to read. But you must umpire play their way, and never apply your own version. If that leaves you uncomfortable then a bit of lateral thinking should soon enough make the same sense of it for you as it does for everyone else.” (and they generally are ‘told’, such instructions it must be appreciated are very rarely given in writing).
Such application is then justified because ‘everyone ‘ umpires in that way so they “mustbe umpiring in the way that ‘the FIH’ wants them to” to quote the oft used circular reasoning. That may be so, I don’t know the name of the individual who is referred to as ‘the FIH‘, but from the wording of the Rule Guidance it clearly isn’t the way in which the FIH Rules Committee (the sole Rule Authority) intend this Rule to be applied.
The first sentence of the Rule Guidance It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field playermay be out of date now as it was not altered when the ‘gains benefit’ exception to the Guidance was withdrawn. If it had been updated it should read It is not an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player. The player commits an offence only if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ballbecause there is not now an exception to justify the word always,that should have been deleted. But, as can be seen, from the instructions given to Level One candidates by the Umpire Coach quoted above there is a reluctance (or refusal) to accept that ‘gains benefit’ has been deleted. (This refusal is based on a note posted on the FIH website in February 2007, three weeks after the issue of thew 2007-9 Rules of Hockey, which apparently restored the deleted Guidance clause. But this appears to have been an unconstitutional act which may have upset the members of the FIH Rules Committee,the clause was not restored to the Rules of Hockey in the 2009-11 or 2011-13 or 2013-15 issues of the rule book. Six years on it must be assumed that the FIH Rules Committee do not intend that it will be – at least not in its previous form.).
How this ….or if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way.is to be judged remains unexplained. The meaning of the words is clear but the context in which they are to be applied is not. For example: – how can any player who is beyond playing distance of the ball be seen to be positioning with the intention of stopping the ball in a certain way?
It is, I think, reasonable to assume that this clause applies to actions taken by a tackler who is within playing distance of the ball; actions such as diving into or across an opponent who is in possession of the ball. It certainly seems unreasonable – assuming the player in question is in a normal playing stance – to ask an umpire to determine the ball playing intentions of a defender who is positioned or positioning beyond playing distance of the ball; what would be the criteria to watch for – other than not in possession of a hockey stick?
It also seems unreasonable to assume that because a player is hit with the ball he or she intended to be so hit or deliberately positioned with that intention – unless of course the player clearly made no attempt to use the stick to play the ball when they could reasonably have attempted to do so. Failure to play the ball with the stick, when there was a genuine attempt to do so, cannot reasonably be seen as an intention to play the ball with the body (but from the evidence in the video clips, it is most often seen in that way).
Field Hockey. Rules. Dangerous play shooting at the goal.
In general play the Rules concerning the dangerous playing of the ball are divided between Rule 9.8 and Rule 9.9.
9.8 Players must not play the ball dangerously or in a way which leads to dangerous play. A ball is considered dangerous when it causes legitimate evasive action by players.
9.9 Players must not intentionally raise the ball from a hit except for a shot at goal.
Players are permitted to raise the ball with a flick or scoop provided it is not dangerous. A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous.
Greater leeway is given when raising the ball during a penalty corner. The ball may be lifted to knee height with the first hit shot (and therefore presumably with a first flicked shot). It is not clear if subsequent shots, hit or flicked, may be raised (just under) knee height as the first shot may be. Umpires are advised in the Umpire Briefing document that a ball raised to “half-shin height” is not dangerous. Half-shin height is approximately 25cms., so presumably a ball raised at another player which is above 25cms may be considered dangerous play. There is no mention of ball velocity in any of these Rules.
13 Procedures for taking penalties. Taking a penalty corner 13.3.l for second and subsequent hits at the goal and for flicks, deflections and scoops, it is permitted to raise the ball to any height but this must not be dangerous
if a defender is within five metres of the first shot at goal during the taking of a penalty corner and is struck by the ball below the knee, another penalty corner must be awarded or is struck on or above the knee in a normal stance, the shot is judged to be dangerous and a free hit must be awarded to the defending team.
In the incident shown in the video clip the ball is flicked high (near head height) and powerfully at a defender who is within 5m of the attacker who propelled the ball. The defender did not move into the path of the ball, on the contrary, he tried to avoid being hit. All the criteria for determining that the ball was played in a dangerous way were met, including both objective criteria: so why did the umpire award a goal and not a free ball to the defending team when the ball deflected off the defender into the net?
The ‘justifications’ frequently offered for such decisions are 1) that there were no protests from the players, so the umpire was doing as the players expected, and 2) the umpire was re-appointed to officiate at subsequent matches, so (he or she) was doing as selectors and umpire managers and coaches expected.
I don’t believe there would have been a ‘storm of protest’ if the umpire had awarded a free ball to the defending team, that too would have been accepted (or ‘sold’ as some umpires put it). The apparent acceptance, by selectors and umpire coaches, of the failure of the umpire to follow the Rules of Hockey, is however baffling. We seldom get to know if the umpire was ‘spoken to’ or ‘marked down’ due to the incorrectness of this kind of decision, and of course ‘disciplinary action’ of this sort, even if it occurs, does not alter the decision or prevent other umpires following the example set by it. In fact it may be asserted by some that because the “goal” decision was made by an experienced National Premier League Umpire, appointed in this instance to the Final of the National League, the decision must have been correct (the official involved also happened to be an FIH Umpire). That the decision was so obviously in conflict with the published Rules of Hockey (and all other relevant documents produced by the FIH) seems not to matter.
The most worrying aspect though must be the risk to players; if this sort of reckless endangerment is not discouraged. Those shooting at the goal will continue to do so without regard for the safety of others, as the attacker in the above clip did. The defender in this instance may be said to have been lucky he was hit near his collar-bone; he had instinctively averted his face and could just as easily have been hit on the head, possibly just in front of his ear, with far more serious consequences than soreness and a bruise. This is what is called ‘an accident waiting to happen’: actually it is negligence, the umpire failing in his duty to do what a reasonable person would in the circumstances do.
What is causing the ignoring of obviously (that is obviously given the Rule criteria) dangerous play? I believe that to be what is seen as the unreasonableness of (absence of ‘common sense’ in) the objective criteria, especially when applied to players at the the higher levels of the game. It is unreasonable to state, once players have reached a quite modest degree of competence, that a ball raised above 25cms from almost 5m is certainly dangerous play, but that is what a literal reading of Rule Guidance (combined with the UMB) gives us in general play.
Once the decision is made (prior to any game )to ignore the given objective criteria (as unreasonable), there is no justification in Rule to search for or apply any other objective criteria, the umpire therefore uses subjective judgement alone. As umpires have in the past (but not currently) been warned in Umpire Briefings, that evasive action may be ‘a con’ by defenders, to make umpires believe that a ball is dangerously played, when in fact the ball has not actually endangered a defender and evasive action is not really ‘legitimate’ (genuine/necessary), it was an easy step to regard all evasive action as suspect or even faked, and some umpires still regard any evasive action in this way (pointing to level of skill), even if this may be unreasonable given the height and velocity at which the ball is traveling.
Add to that the similar opinion that a player who is hit may have (or definitely did) intend to be hit: positioning in front of the goal therefore being seen as ‘illegitimate’, a tenuous reference to a 2001 umpire coaching paper (now withdrawn) which declared “the defender (in front of the goal) arrogates to himself the position and duties of a goalkeeper……the ball may be shot at him as if he were a fully equipped goalkeeper” which was never quite cancelled out by the conflicting “an attacker must shoot at the goal not at a defender positioned between the attacker and the goal” from the same document. It is impossible to defend the goal without positioning between the shooting attacker and the goal and if such positioning is deemed to be ‘suspect’ or even illegitimate (not legal), the whole structure of the judgement of a dangerously played ball falls apart, because no ball can in those circumstances be considered dangerously played – which is where we seem to be at present with an ‘on target’ shot at the goal. It appears that only if the ball is going wide of the goal (UMB) will it be considered dangerous – which is ridiculous.
I believe ‘knee height’ needs to be used as a criteria for ‘dangerous’ in general play, but only for a ball raised from within 3m, and elbow height ought should be used for balls propelled from any distance beyond 3m.(and up to 20m given that the ball may be drag-flicked into the circle in the hope of a deflected ‘own goal). I think these would be more reasonable heights and distances.
‘Legitimate evasive action’ needs to be withdrawn as a criteria, it has never made sense to determine if the actions of the player propelling the ball are dangerous dependent on the reaction (or lack of reaction) to the propelled ball by an opponent. It makes more sense to consider ball velocity and the propensity of a ball propelled at high velocity to cause injury, than to consider if evasion was legitimate or not (provided it could be attempted at all).
Field Hockey. The purpose of the Obstruction Rule.
The purpose of the Obstruction Rule is to ensure open and fair contest for the ball within the parameters of a non-contact game.
As physical contact is prohibited in field hockey it is necessary, for balance, to also prohibit the shielding of the ball in a way that prevents an opponent from playing the ball. At the same time, for tactical reasons, back-passing for example, it is desirable that players be permitted to face in any direction and move with the ball in any direction when an opponent is not in a position to play the ball: that is when there is no opponent within playing distance of the ball or none in a position to play at the ball (they could for example be facing in the wrong direction or moving in the wrong direction and/or off balance and/or not demonstrating any intention to play the ball
It is much easier to describe a circumstance where a player in possession of the ball is not or cannot be obstructing an opponent than it is to describe circumstances which are certain to be obstructive play, but here is an attempt:-
When an opponent is own goal-side of the ball, within playing reach of it, in a balanced position and demonstrating an intention to play the ball, that opponent will be obstructed if the only reason they cannot play at the ball is because a player in possession of it interposes or has has interposed their body or stick between the opponent and the ball in a way that prevents the opponent playing the ball. This is so whether or not such interposing is intentional and even should the player in possession be standing and remaining stationary with the ball; moving only the ball; moving only the body; moving with the ball but not moving away at sufficient speed to take the ball beyond the playing reach of a tracking opponent i.e. the ball holder is dawdling on the ball (rather than moving swiftly to outpace and round the opponent or to outpace and then face the opponent with the ball)
The keys to avoiding committing an obstructive offence when in possession of the ball are to move the ball away or move away with the ball before an opponent comes within playing distance of it and then to maintain distance beyond the opponent’s playing reach or to be own goal-side of the ball and facing the opponent or to be the opponent’s goal-side of the opponent with the ball (and preferably – but not necessarily – facing the opponent’s goal)
In brief;- Obstruction is interposing the stick or body between an opponent and the ball so as to prevent that opponent making a legal attempt to play the ball when the opponent would otherwise be able to do so.
In the video clip above there can be no doubt that if the England player did not shield the ball the German player would have been able to play at it immediately he was within reach of it. That the German player was not able to play at the ball, because of the positioning of the body by the England player, and only for that reason, indicates an obstructive offence by the England player.
The same is true in this clip. The blue player shields the ball to prevent the white player making a tackle when otherwise he would have been able to do so.
Field Hockey. Interpretation of Rules and Rule Guidance.
Consider the following statements and conclusion.
Nothing is better than eternal happiness.
A ham sandwich is better than nothing.
Therefore, a ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness.
Nickerson (1986) Quoted in Thinking and Deciding by Jonathan Baron
Common sense tells us that the conclusion is not logical even if the difference between the first “nothing” and the second one is not consciously examined. .
When considering two terms that are abstract, but perhaps more mundane than “eternal happiness”, and comparing them with other abstracts, rather than objects like ham sandwiches, the duplicity (or lack of thought) might not be so evident and it may be a great deal more difficult to apply ‘common sense’ to dismiss (or correct) similarly ‘odd’ conclusions.
The “Nothing” which begins the first sentence is a short way of saying”There is not anything” or “No known thing”. In the second it means “not having anything”and the conclusion given in the third line does not follow from these terms.
It only takes a moment to reflect on the meaning of words in the context in which they are used in writing to come to a rational or ‘common sense’ interpretation of the meaning intended by the writer at the time of writing each of the first two dispirit statements. The conclusion is of course a deliberate ‘play on words’, a pun.
We use such shortcuts all the time when speaking to each other. Generally, but not always, the context of the conversation makes the use of such colloquialism acceptable and understood in the way the speaker means them to be understood. (“having nothing” is an oxymoron in this context and the oft heard “I ain’t got nothing” is an ‘accepted’ nonsense in speech which people ‘know’ – but often don’t understand, even when it is pointed out to them, so ‘accepted’ is the meaning – means the opposite of what the words should convey).
In writing, it is usually necessary to be more careful about jargon, slang and short-cuts of expression, because in the absence of the person ‘speaking’ they can be ambiguous, as we have seen. Care is especially required when writing rules (about anything in any area) which not everyone wants to accept or obey (If there was a law which everyone wanted to accept and obey at all times and forever, that law would be unnecessary). In such circumstances ambiguity may be exploited, even to the point where the law or rule is interpreted and the interpretation accepted and then applied in a way opposite or divergent to that intended by those who drafted it. Many lawyers make their livings from such ambiguities – creating them and/or defending or prosecuting the results of them.
The practice of law in an office or even a court-room does not have the same time pressures and need for rapid communication as the umpiring of a hockey match. When an umpire says “foot” or “feet”when asked why the whistle was blown s/he will rarely ( if ever) say “voluntarily made ball/body contact” but that should be what is meant. It is inevitable that short terms will be used on the pitch and jargon will be used between umpires when talking about Rules and the application of them to incidents in hockey matches. It is also almost inevitable that over time they will be misunderstood or misused.
The danger is that the original meaning or intent of the Rule and Rule Guidance may be lost in such communications, Not everyone interprets given words in the same way. The original wording may not be consulted very often, and both personal opinion and personal bias will have an influence on how words are interpreted. “Foot”, for example, has come for many to mean any ball/foot contact no matter how caused or unavoidable; in fact those who insist that no unintentional ball/foot contact can be an offence (which is presently true) seem to be in the minority.
The ‘cascading’ of verbal interpretation as a means of coaching – in preference to using the written rulebook - is a serious problem. Passing information accurately between individuals ‘by word of mouth’ is known to be notoriously unreliable (each one in the chain perhaps adding their own ‘slant’ or ‘spin’ and/or leaving out ‘unimportant parts’) but we seem to be ‘stuck ‘ with that approach. Because of it we have various ‘interpretations’ of “legitimate”, “dangerous”, “benefit”, “attempting”and “voluntarily”; We have “positioning” seen as an offence and so, apparently, is “intention”.
The published Rules of Hockey are far from the path to eternal happiness but these variable interpretations of the Rules seem to be ‘sandwiches’ – of myth and invention – made by ‘hams’. Lady Mondegreen will enjoy her picnic.
Field Hockey Rules: Barging; Backing-in; Obstruction; Physical contact; Dangerous play; Injury.
Two incidents from the London Olympic Games.
First the Rule and relevant parts of the embedded Guidance (the part concerning ‘third party’ has been omitted)
9.12 Players must not obstruct an opponent who is attempting to play the ball
Players obstruct if they :
- back into an opponent
– physically interfere with the stick or body of an opponent
– shield the ball from a legitimate tackle with their stick or any part of their body
A player with the ball is permitted to move off with it in any direction except bodily into an opponent or in to a position between the ball and an opponent who is within playing distance of the ball and attempting to play it.
In this incident ball shielding by positioning (turning) between the ball and an opponent who is within playing distance of the ball and attempting to play it; there is also a backing-in offence. (What was the ball holder trying to do?)
Obstructed player hit in the face with a stick while attempting to tackle.
and here ball shielding, again by positioning the body, between a close opponent who was attempting to tackle, and the ball, and also interference with the stick of the same opponent (followed by dangerous play).
Makes one wonder what part of the Rule the umpires concerned did not (do not) understand or, assuming they do understand it (and why not?), why the Rule is not applied? Is it “too difficult” ?
As for the players, neither one with any idea of using stick-work, footwork and speed to elude an opponent when they choose not to pass the ball.
Field Hockey. Not Obstruction while receiving and controlling. Obstruction when turning and backing in while in possession.
This clause: - A stationary player receiving the ball is permitted to face in any directionfrom the Rule Guidance is strange because it is incomplete as well as being written in ‘short-hand’. There is no reason a receiving player or a player already in controlled possession of the ball – be they be moving or stationary – should not be facing in any direction. The clause would be completed by adding the presence of an opponent who is intent on playing the ball and is within playing distance of the ball as it is received.
A receiving player is permitted to receive the ball while facing in any direction even when closely marked by an opponent – this is an exception to the Obstruction Rule. This exception was introduced in 92/93. and was introduced as “A change in interpretation not a change to the Rule” The same words are used to ‘explain’ the current (sic) application of the Obstruction Rule, although the Rule and the embedded Guidance to it has been rewritten since 1992, most notably 2001 (part deleted) in 2004 (complete rewrite) and added to in 2009.
In complete contrast – and this does not now appear to be understood – a player who is already in controlled possession of the ball – so not in the act of receiving and controlling the ball, is NOT permitted to be facing in any direction while an opponent who is within playing distance of the ball is attempting to play the ball.
In general terms the player in possession has to be behind the ball, that is his own goal side of it when an opponent, the opponent’s goal side of the ball, is attempting to play the ball. There is of course a transition between facing the attacker’s goal (the goal of the player in possession) and facing the defender’s goal, it’s not a case of one position or the other, but a player in controlled possession of the ball must endeavour not to position his body between an opponent and the ball in a way that obstructs a tackle attempt – a receiving player is permitted to do so , but only briefly while the ball is brought under control.
In the video the Australian player ‘pushes’ the time allowed to, and perhaps a bit beyond, what should be an acceptable time at that level to receive, control and move away with the ball. The New Zealand player in the second incident demonstrates good technique, there is no ‘dwelling’ on the ball at all. That is how it should be, the purpose of the leeway given is to facilitate receiving without fear of physical contact, not as a means to hold the ball in a stationary position or to ‘dawdle’ on it while ‘blocking off’ an opponent, while waiting for support or a pass option or an opportunity to ‘roll off’ an opponent.
Rule 9.12 Players must not obstruct an opponent who is attempting to play the ball.
Players obstruct if they :
– back into an opponent – physically interfere with the stick or body of an opponent – shield the ball from a legitimate tackle with their stick or any part of their body.
A stationary player receiving the ball is permitted to face in any direction.
A player with the ball is permitted to move off with it in any direction except bodily into an opponent or into a position between the ball and an opponent who is within playing distance of the ball and attempting to play it.
A player who runs in front of or blocks an opponent to stop them legitimately playing or attempting to play the ball is obstructing (this is third party or shadow obstruction). This also applies if an attacker runs across or blocks defenders (including the goalkeeper or player with goalkeeping privileges) when a penalty corner is being taken.
The German player, who approached the opponent’s circle, when already in controlled possession of the ball for a considerable distance, flouted the Obstruction Rule in several ways – all of these:-
Players obstruct if they:
shield the ball from a legitimate tackle with their stick or any part of their body
or back into an opponent
or move bodily into an opponent
or position between the ball and an opponent who is within playing distance of the ball and attempting to play it.
All that is reasonably clearly stated, but for those ‘hung up’ on the word legitimate before the word tackle or what is not said, but is usually ‘understood’, I’ll put the terms less concisely (and in a different order)
It is not legitimate play for a player in possession of the ball to shield the ball from an opponent with their stick or any part of their body, this action may be an obstructive offence.
It is not legitimate play for a player in possession of the ball to position between the ball and an opponent who is within playing distance of the ball and attempting to play it, this action may be an obstructive offence
(The above actions are not obstructive play if the player in possession of the ball is the defender’s goal-side of the defender – unless the stick or leg or hand or arm is used to fend off the stick of the opponent during a tackle attempt made from the side or from behind the player in possession – the ball must be moved beyond reach, not access to it blocked. )
It is not legitimate play for a player in possession of the ball to back into an opponent, this action is a barging offence and an obstructive offence.
It is not legitimate play for a player in possession of the ball to move bodily into an opponent, this action is a barging offence and an obstructive offence.
Because hockey is a non-contact sport, for fairness, a player in possession of the ball is obliged by Rule to permit an opponent a clear path and clear access to the ball at all times and an opponent cannot be hindered or impeded in any way while attempting to tackle for the ball. Individual possession in maintained by moving the ball by means of stick-work, footwork (including spin-turns where appropriate) and foot-speed; team possession is maintained by combining these individual skills with passing movements (including back-passing). A player in possession of the ball who allows an on balance opponent to come within playing reach of the ball reduces her/his immediate playing options i.e. turning on or with the ball is either restricted or impossible but a competent player, moving with the ball in front of the feet and towards the opponent’s goal, cannot obstruct an opponent with his body. Fending off the stick of an opponent as it is moved towards the ball, with the stick a leg or an arm/hand will be an obstructive offence no matter what the orientation of the players to each other or to the goals.
There is an oddity in the wording of the embedded Guidance:-
A stationary player receiving the ball is permitted to face in any direction.
Why only a stationary player? to explain this it is is necessary to go back more than twenty years - to 1992.
Prior to 1992/3 a forward player receiving the ball from the direction of his own defenders would, in order to avoid giving an obstructive offence, have to be either in clear space with no opponent within playing distance of the ball as he received it or he would have to make a lead run towards the ball so that he could take control of it and turn to face opponents before they came within playing distance of the ball. The New Zealand player in the video clip makes a similar kind of move and turn. The change in interpretation, new in 1993 and revolutionary at the time, was that a player in a stationary position could receive the ball even with an opponent close behind him without being immediately guilty of an obstructive offence – as long as having controlled the ball he then moved away with it (from any close or approaching opponent) to take and keep the ball beyond the reach of that opponent. It was unnecessary to explain in the Guidance that a moving player could be facing in any direction – everybody already knew that, it was standard practice.
The changes to Interpretation and application have been so profound since then that today nobody ‘knows that’. Yet it is still possible to hear an umpire declaring “The Rule has not changed only the interpretation has” There have been changes made to the Rule and Guidance, a complete rewrite in 2004 and an additional clause to Guidance concerning a player in possession of the ball in 2009. The changes to interpretation and application however have been profound, going far beyond the ‘revolutionary’ changes made in 1992. Of course if one asks an umpire ”What is the Interpretation?” Why for example was the German player who dribbled the ball to the circle, in the video clip above, not penalised for obstruction- as per the Rule and the embedded Guidance ? It is probable that you will get a blank look and a shrug of the shoulders.The umpire might even sigh and look pained at your ignorance – but you won’t get an answer to that question .
The first section of the above video is what was originally presented by the FIH Umpiring Committee on the Dartfish web-site as a umpire coaching video entitled Obstruction 3 (I believe it is now called Tackles 2). The text of the Obstruction Rule and Rule Guidance is given and then an interpretation of the action as follows:-
Interpretation of the action
The GER team try to pass the ball out of defence. The GER player receives the ball and initially moves it out of the playing distance of the ARG player. When the GER player turns with the ball the ARG player is not actively trying to tackle or play the ball. When the GER player plays the ball over the stick of the ARG player, it runs out of her playing distance for an ARG side-line ball. The contact between the two players sticks is accidental and does not affect play.
and that interpretation is astonishing for what it does not say as much as for what it does. A breakdown of the above interpretation:-
The GER team try to pass the ball out of defence. The GER player receives the ball and initially moves it out of the playing distance of the ARG player. Yes she does, but how that is done is not remarked upon except to say that the GER player turns with the ball. It is not pointed out that she turns – to position her body between an opponent approaching with the intention of tackling for the ball and the ball – and for no other purpose than to shield the ball and prevent that tackle attempt and she does not then move away with the ball.
When the GER player turns with the ball the ARG player is not actively trying to tackle or play the ball. That is debatable, the ARG player is in fact trying hard to reach and play the ball and would probably have succeeded in doing so had the GER player, having turned her back to the ARG player, not stepped over the ARG player’s stick and across her path to block further progress towards the ball.
There is a significant gap in the description of the action after the initial (counterclockwise) turn of the GER player. There is a failure to describe not only the step-over that halted the ARG player’s progress and obstructed her as she closed on the ball, but also a subsequent attempt by the ARG player to go around the GER player to get to the ball with her stick, which was prevented by the GER player side-stepping to her right while facing the base-line and knocking the ARG player’s stick away with her leg – that tackle attempt – and obstruction – certainly took place while the ARG player was within playing distance of the ball, and the obstruction should have been penalised. Having made several side-steps while facing the base-line, to take the play out of the circle, the GER player then rotates (again counterclockwise) and clips the ball from in front of her feet to lift it over stick of the ARG player, by then flat on the ground behind the GER player, and attempts to move past the position of the ARG player following the ball. The ARG player recovered an upright stance in time to avoid the physical contact (and penalty for obstruction) which might otherwise have occurred. To miss any and all obstruction on video review of the incident and to declare that the ARG was “not actively trying to play the ball” appears to be willful blindness. (I have no idea why the word ‘actively’ was inserted. Is it possible to try to carry out a physical action other than actively?)
The interpretation concludes:-
When the GER player plays the ball over the stick of the ARG player, it runs out of her playing distance for an ARG side-line ball. The contact between the two players sticks is accidental and does not affect play. It did have an effect on the play…..but never mind.
The omission of mention of the tackle attempt made, while the ARG player was certainly within playing distance of the ball, is disturbing, but equally disturbing, I think, is the notion that if a turn away with the ball is completed a fraction of a second before an opponent comes within playing reach of the ball the ball holder may then after the opponent has come to within playing reach of the ball , remain stationary or move – her body or the ball or both - to maintain a ball shielding position, as the GER player did, without being in breach of the Obstruction Rule.
A look at the relevant Rule Guidance:-
Players obstruct if they :
– shield the ball from a legitimate tackle with their stick or any part of their body.
A player with the ball is permitted to move off with it in any direction except bodily into an opponent or into a position between the ball and an opponent who is within playing distance of the ball and attempting to play it.
The last clause, if joined with the introductory phrase reads:- A player with the ball is permitted to move off with it in any direction except into a position between the ball and an opponent who is within playing distance of the ball and attempting to play it.
It is clear that a player in possession of the ball can legally turn to interpose the body between the ball and an opponent who is approaching, as long as at the time the turn is made the opponent is not yet within playing reach of the ball. But what is no longer clear – because of “simplification” (which was supposed to give “clarity” to the Rules) – is what the player in possession cannot then do (or has to do), in order to meet the onus not to obstruct an opponent, once that opponent is within playing distance of the ball and demonstrating an intention to play at the ball. The onus (responsibility) not to obstruct is created by: Rule 9.12 Players must not obstruct an opponent who is attempting to play the ball.
“Demonstrating an intention to play at the ball” is a phrase from a previous era. I think it far superior to “attempting to play“.
Having ‘stripped out’ :-
Umpires should be aware of players who are in possession of the ball who shield the ball with body, leg or stick and stand still when under pressure (which disappeared in the 2004 reformat and “simplification and clarification” of the rulebook)we are left with the present Rule Guidance; so we are not given clear direction about the permitted and/or prohibited actions of a player in possession of the ball who has turned away to position his body between an opponent and the ball prior to that opponent getting to within playing distance of it , other than Players obstruct if they shield the ball from a legitimate tackle with their stick or any part of their body – which is rendered useless by various interpretations of the word ‘legitimate’. (In clear and simple Rule Guidance the unnecessary ‘legitimate’ would not be inserted)
Umpires it seems prefer to recall the long deleted (2001) “The onus is on the tackler to be in and if necessary to move to a position from which a legitimate tackle can be attempted” rather than ensuring Rule compliance from players who are in possession of the ball who shield the ball with body, leg or stick and stand still when under pressure (pre 2004 rulebook Rule Interpretations and also the published Umpire Managers Briefing).Which of these two ‘positions’ best reflects Players must not obstruct an opponent who is attempting to play the ball ? I believe it to be the latter.
The practice of ‘crab-walking’ the ball along a side-line or base-line while ‘protecting’ (leading) it with the body, something seen to happen frequently and without penalty now, was also previously specifically prohibited. (That practice developed as a result of “may move away“ and then the pitifully weak “is permitted to move off ” replacing the original “must move away with the ball“) .What has now been allowed to ‘evolve’ is the (clearly illegal) practice of players in possession, in all parts of the field, leading the ball bodily into opponents
as well as the previous, and still prohibited, practices of ball receivers backing into opponents while turning with the ball and ‘rolling off’ them. These practices are often referred to as “protecting the ball” - rather than ‘shielding’ - and treated as if changing the words used to describe an action changes the action.
Positioning to make a (legitimate ??) tackle is I think best dealt with by Rule 9.13 Players must not tackle unless in a position to play the ball without body contact. It should be noted that a player who is not in a position to tackle without body contact may be in (have been put in) that position because he has been obstructed while approaching a player turning while in possession of the ball. There is a balance to be maintained between a tackler not tackling with the use of physical contact and a player in possession of the ball not (deliberately) shielding the ball in order to prevent a tackle attempt.
The following clip also produced by the FIH Umpiring Committee has a contrasting interpretation and outcome to the one shown above.
Interpretation.
The first ARG player runs at the ENG defence and passes the ball to the second ARG player. She dribbles the ball towards the circle. As she nears it, she turns her body to shields the ball prevent the ENG defender from being able to tackler her. The umpire awards a free hit to ENG as a result of this shielding of the ball from a legitimate tackle by the ENG defender.
That interpretation is in line with what is given in the Rules of Hockey. Shielding the ball to prevent a tackle attempt is obstruction.
FIH Umpiring Committee umpire coaching video entitled Obstruction 6 (or Obstruction 2_es)
The givenInterpretation:- The ARG attacker enters the 23 meters areas and just before she reaches the edge of the circle plays a pass which is intended for her team mate. The GER defender tries to intercept the pass, but the ball deflects off her stick. The GER defender regains control of the ball. The second ARG attacker tries to claim that she is being obstructed. The Umpire allows play to continue, because at no point did the second ARG attacker ever legitimately attempt to play the ball.
Does one laugh or cry? Obstruction of this sort would be penalised in even in a physical contact game such as Soccer and in both Rugby Codes. The above video is not about a player in possession shielding the ball from a tackle attempt but shows a team-mate of the player in possession of the ball preventing an opponent from even approaching to within playing distance of the ball – a third party obstruction.( and also a physical contact offence)
Whoever wrote the ‘interpretation of the action’ didn’t (doesn’t ?) know the difference (and again leaves out the significant part of the action). The claim that the ARG player in the first clip in this article did not make an attempt to tackle loses credibility, as does the claim (that has been made) that these videos are “definitive” (will be used in preference to the written Rules of Hockey). It would be a good thing to have definitive videos of aspects of the Rule Guidance produced by the FIH Rules Committee, to supplement the written Rules, but we are a very long way from that at present.
Field Hockey. Evasive Action, Defining a dangerously played ball
9.8 Players must not play the ball dangerously or in a way which leads to dangerous play.
A ball is considered dangerous when it causes legitimate evasive action by players.
The Guidance does not say A ball is considered dangerous only when it causes legitimate evasive action by players. Causing legitimate evasive action by an opponent is dangerous play, but not the only dangerous play possible when propelling the ball. The Guidance to Rule 9.9. declares A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous. But again,that does not state that a flick or a scoop towards an opponent may be dangerous to that opponent only when the opponent is within 5m of the ball at the time it was propelled; 5m is not a maximum, beyond which dangerous playing of the ball at an opponent is not a possibility.
An umpire is given a great deal of latitude in the Rules of Hockey to make subjective judgement about a dangerously played ball, but instructed in the Rule Guidance that a dangerous play offence has certainly occurred when legitimate evasion is caused (forced) and/or the ball is raised (in any way with a flick or scoop – no height is given) at an opponent who is within 5m.
(The UMB – which is not the Rules of Hockey but advice, declares that a ball raised to half shin-pad height is not dangerous – but does not indicate a distance from an opponent).
In this incident (below) the Spanish player raises the ball into a closing opponent and in so doing committed an offence. The New Zealand player, who was blameless, was penalised for being hit with the ball. (All the Spanish players appealled, as if being hit with the ball was an offence).
The Penalty Corner Rule introduces above knee height and within 5m as a dangerous play criteria and this has crept into ‘common practice’ in application of the Rule on all raising of the ball into an opponent, to the extent that a player hit with the ball below knee height, even from within 5m, is usually penalised – despite the ‘practice’ of penalising forced or accidental ball/body contact being in conflict with the Rules (‘Rules’ means the Rule Proper together with the embedded Guidance, which is instruction from the FIH Rules Committee about the application of the Rule – Rule and Rule Guidance should not be considered to be independent of each other – apparent conflicts between the two arise because of exceptions or special circumstances, set out in the Guidance, which must be taken in to account. Separating Rule and Rule Guidance and discounting one or the other is incorrect. If the FIH did not want participants to take account of Rule Guidance it would not be in the rulebook.)
9.9 Players must not intentionally raise the ball from a hit except for a shot at goal.
A raised hit must be judged explicitly on whether or not it is raised intentionally.
It is not an offence to raise the ball unintentionally from a hit, including a free hit, anywhere on the field unless it is dangerous.
If the ball is raised over an opponent’s stick or body on the ground, even within the circle, it is permitted unless judged to be dangerous.
Players are permitted to raise the ball with a flick or scoop provided it is not dangerous. A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous.
If an opponent is clearly running into the shot or into the attacker without attempting to play the ball with their stick, they should be penalised for dangerous play.
The last clause in the Guidance to Rule 9.9. ‘hangs’ on without attempting to play the ball with their stick it is not an offence anywhere on the pitch or in any stage of play – such as a penalty corner – to close on a player receiving the ball or in possession of the ball, nor is it an offence to move into the line of a shot to intercept or to attempt to intercept the ball with the stick – to prohibit any of these legitimate playing actions would be to prohibit defending. The clause is in fact out of place in a Rule which is about dangerous propelling of the ball, it only states what Rule 9.11. gives us, with the addition of movement by the defender, it should be part of Rule.9.11. – as should the clause before it, concerning the dangerous raising of a ball with a flick or scoop.
9.11 Field players must not stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their body.
It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player. The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball or if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way.
I have no idea how an umpire determines the offence of ‘positioning with intention” , from - (sic) a player commits an offence – if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball with the foot, hand or body – if a defending player is beyond playing distance of the ball. I have not been offered any explanation, despite repeated requests, but some umpires appear to assume from this clause that if a player is hit with the ball – especially while defending the goal – they intended to be hit with the ball and should be penalised. Such an assumption cannot be justified. Assumptions without clear evidence should not be made in any case.
Besides the problem of ‘positioning with intention’ there is the problem of the meaning of ‘legitimate evasive action’. What does legitimate evasive action mean, when a defender evading the ball – obviously to avoid being injured by it – is not seen by an umpire to be taking legitimate action and such evasion does not result in penalty against the player who propelled the ball ? It seems ‘crazy’ to me that whether or not an action by one player is ‘officially’ dangerous to another depends not on the nature of the ball propelled (at an opponent, at a certain height, at high velocity) but on the (often forced) reaction of the defending player – and that then, that reaction is ignored.
Why in the incident below did the umpire apparently decide that the evasion of the ball by the defender was not legitimate? Did it even ‘register’ in his mind that the ball was propelled in a way that caused an evasive action that was necessary to avoid injury? There is the possibility that the umpire considered the positioning of the defender on the goal-line to be illegitimate (despite an absence of Rule on the matter, except maybe the strange – (sic) positioning with the intention of playing the ball in that way)
In the incident below the flicker uses the body of the out-running defender as a ‘target’ and a ‘shield’, so that the goal-line defender sees the ball very late, if at all, if the out-runner evades the shot. It’s a win/win situation for the attacker, because if he hits the out-runner (at any height) when the out runner is 5m or more away (and often when the out runner is within 5m when hit above knee height) another penalty corner will commonly be awarded – despite the Rules on dangerous play and on intimidation.
.
In the clip below, from a different game, the same attacker uses exactly the same technique. This time the defender on the goal-line did not see the ball in time to evade it and was hit. His skull was fractured and his ear drum perforated. The umpire (unaware of the seriousness of the injury – but that is not relevant) awarded a penalty stroke.
.
The following incident requires a separate article because of what led to the award of the penalty corner and the final decision – the reason the defence were awarded a free (it was not for the dangerously raised ball) contrasts sharply with the (intentional) targeting of defending players. Sufficient to say that the television commentators thought a penalty stroke would (and should) have been awarded but for the fact that the ball was going wide of the goal – which according to their information made the shot dangerous – when an on target shot would not have been dangerous play, even if it did hit the defender in the face. Where did that idea come from?
.
Moving away for the moment from the endangering of a player on the goal-line, there is the emergence of the term ‘Suicide Runner’ – a term used to justify the endangering a defender running towards the ball in an attempt to prevent the shot by tackling or intercepting the ball with his stick , both perfectly legitimate defensive actions, by pretending that such proactive defending is illegal.
The clip is from a coaching series produced in 2004 entitled Suicide Running. Which runners were considered ‘suicidal’ and which playing legitimately was left open for discussion, but it was not long before all running from the goal towards the ball at a penalty corner was being declared an offence – which is certainly not the case. Having played the ball dangerously – the Dutch flicker hits the Australian out runner high on the arm – the Dutch players then try to ‘con’ the umpire into believing he was struck below the knee (and believe that even if that contact was unavoidable by the defender another penalty corner should be awarded – a result of ‘expectation building’ by umpires).
.
A few years later the notion that an out-runner is at fault if hit with the ball had crept into all levels of club hockey. I have no idea what offence the umpire though the defender had committed – he probably didn’t think at all. It’s not at all unusual to see a penalty corner ‘automatically’ awarded for any sort of ball body contact by a defender in the circle, (so much for subjective judgement) in fact it has become accepted and expected (so much for common sense).
.
This raised reverse edge strike caused legitimate evasive action. – Reaction from the umpire to this clearly dangerous strike ? – None.
Another similar revere edge strike strike in open play. Incredibly the umpire awarded a penalty stroke when he might, more sensibly have yellow carded the striker – there was nothing accidental about the endangering of opponents; the striker could not have cared less.
.
Finally there is this incident in which the defender bravely defends a head high shot with her stick – which is unusual in itself – evade or be hit is much more common especially when there is sight blocking going on. There is no evasive action caused but the ball is, in my opinion, certainly dangerous. It forces self-defence and without such defence the player would either give away a goal or be hit with the ball and injured – which seems to me in the circumstances to be a workable definition of a dangerously played ball – that the ball was raised with a flick and at the goal is irrelevant because neither of these actions should be carried out in a way that endangers another player.
I believe that even if it was properly enforced – which it isn’t – causing evasive action is an inadequate and senseless way to determine if a player has been endangered by the ball propelling action of an opponent. It makes sense to declare a ball has been played dangerously if it is played at an opponent, at above a given height or above the (standing) elbow height of the player (the defending player in the clip is diminutive and should not be penalised for that), at a velocity that could injure. It should also be clear that there is no 5m limit, adding “and within 15m” to the existing “above knee height and within 5m” rounds out a set of criteria that players as well as umpires can judge with consistency. (or even adding ” and within 20m” to cope with the introduction of the own-goal which raises the possibility of a high velocity flat trajectory drag-flick raised into the circle in the hope of a deflection).
Players cannot play to the Rules, even if they want to, if they do not know what they are.
An opinion by Dr. Ric Charlesworth, Australian Men’s Field Hockey Coach, given to Fieldhockey.com
“Hockey has never been so attractive as it is now. It flows and is skillful. Then why have we introduced a new rule that does not reward skill? No longer do you need to get into the semi circle to score. After finding a solution to the bash into the circle we are now encouraging it again!
After removing the CHIP, which blighted the game in the 80s, we are again encouraging the aerial ball, which will be the preferred way to travel up the field. Strange decision indeed!
It gets worse.”
Dr. Charlesworth then goes on, at greater length, to criticize International Competition structures and qualification from the World League Championships. He concludes:-
“Surely it is time that some rigour was brought to the integrity and design of our competition structures. While we have largely improved the rules (notwithstanding the latest changes) why are we going backward in rewarding consistent quality in our new competition?”
I have no comment to make about competition structures but, although I agree wholeheartedly with his observations about the Own Goal, I find some of his statements about hockey and the Rules of Hockey at odds with my own experience and views.
“Hockey has never been so attractive as it is now. It flows and is skillful”
“..we are again encouraging the aerial ball, which will be the preferred way to travel up the field. Strange decision indeed! “
“While we have largely improved the rules (notwithstanding the latest changes)…”
The first and third statements are similar, so to I’ll comment on the second one first.
I assume he is referring to the introduction of the facility to lift the ball directly from a free with any stroke except a hit, which was suggested as a safety measure (preventing a scoop after a free being made past a charging opponent who is trying to tackle before the scoop is made, intercept it or cause the scooper to ‘fluff’ it) it also has the tactical advantage of not requiring two players close to the ball if, immediately the free is taken, it is decided that a scoop will be made (similar to the Self Pass not needing a passer and a receiver).
It is also possible to make a scoop immediately the ball has been moved after a Self-Pass is taken, but the criticism only comes now, so I assume that that aspect is not the problem, as the Self-Pass has been in operation within the FIH since 2009. Comparing the facility to lift the ball directly from a free, using a flick or a scoop, with the chip-hit in open play is simply silly and degrades the valid criticism of the introduction of the Own Goal.
The criticism I make of the Direct Lift, as it has now been presented by the FIH is that lifting the ball directly into the circle from outside the opponent’s 23m line is permitted, I feel that a raised hit pass into the circle ought to be prohibited, and a raised pass, of any description, from a free ball directly into the circle, ought to be banned. Dr Charlesworth misses the point of the lifted ball into the circle and talks instead ofa preferred way to travel up the field.That is strange as a Direct Lift only possibly comes into operation after a free ball has been awarded, not at all a preferred way to play the ball up the field, and it makes no difference whatsoever to the making of scoops in open play – which will continue to be made exactly as before the Direct Lift was introduced.
“Hockey has never been so attractive as it is now. It flows and is skillful”
“While we have largely improved the rules”
I disagree strongly with both those statements and I wonder who the “we” is who have largely improved the Rules. The application of the rules has certainly not improved, I can’t recall a time when the Rules of Hockey in regard to Conduct of Play were more ignored or contradicted in ‘practice’.
The failure to apply the Rule on ball shielding, for example, at times (unfairly) facilitates ‘flow’, at other times ‘flow’ is ‘clogged’ in a corner of the pitch or up against a side-line until a penalty is awarded (usually in favour of the player causing the obstruction as frustrated opponents make physical contact either accidentally, or on purpose if time is precious to them, to get things moving again) and the game slows or comes to a complete halt. The failure to prevent deliberate ball shielding also leads to other instances of physical contact – again usually from the player who is shielding the ball – who is seldom penalised for it.
Here is a small selection of examples of what is apparently seen as attractive hockey
.
What Rules have been improved? The Self Pass appears to be generally regarded as ‘a good thing’ despite being ‘mauled’ by a number absurd 5m restrictions – which leave it much less ‘a good thing’ than it should be. I don’t regard the ban on playing a free ball awarded in the opponents 23m area into the circle, as an improvement (a ban on any raising of the ball into the circle with a hit , in any phase of play, would be an improvement ). What other changes have there been in the last ten years that might be viewed as improvements ? The largely ignored ban on raising the ball intentionally with a hit ? What other changes to the Rules have there been at all in the last ten years?
The perception that the FIH HRB were too frequently or continually changing the Rules, and that the FIH Rules Committee continue to do so, is utterly false. In fact there have been few changes to the RULES since 2003 and even fewer improvements. The evolution of ‘practice’ and ‘interpretation’ is another matter entirely – and there have been no improvements there.
The call for intellectual rigour and common sense I can empathise with, but that call must apply as much to the framing and application of the Rules of Hockey as it does to competitions structures. The method of qualification from events such as the World League Championship seems, however, to be the main point in Dr. Charleswoth’s comment.
International competition structures don’t directly impinge on around 98% of participants in hockey, while the Rules of Conduct of Play, and the application of them, involves all participants. The Rules appear to have been mentioned just to grab the attention of a wider audience, the vast majority of whom are not in any way effected by the structure of the World League Championship – a direct letter to the organizing committee of that competition, with suggestions for improvement, might have been the more appropriate course of action – these people can’t be embarrassed into doing things correctly by publishing on the Internet, many of them take the fact of their appointment as a sign of infallibility.
The video clips above showed some examples of slowing of the game by obstructive play. Here are some that show the much vaunted ‘flow’ in action.
This last one starts with a coaching video on obstruction produced by the Australian HA in 2004.
‘Clueless’ would be an apt description. In a similar way to ‘finding a foot’ of a defender in the opponent’s circle to ‘win’ a penalty corner, obstructive play – which is clearly contrary to Rule – is now regarded not only as ‘acceptable’ but as a skill to be acquired by good players. In both cases umpires (are told to) go along with these developments that have nothing at all to do with improvements to Rules or even compliance with Rules.
.
Link to Index of Ruleshttp://wp.me/p3tNmd-3
Field Hockey. Obstruction. Shielding the ball to prevent a tackle attempt.
The quality of this video clip is not good but it illustrates both a receiver of the ball and a player in controlled possession of the ball – two entirely different Obstruction Rule application situations – in sequence.
Players obstruct if they :
– back into an opponent – physically interfere with the stick or body of an opponent – shield the ball from a legitimate tackle with their stick or any part of their body.
A player with the ball is permitted to move off with it in any direction except bodily into an opponent
or into a position between the ball and an opponent who is within playing distance of the ball and attempting to play it.(this last clause added in 2009)
Did the attacker back into (move towards) the goalkeeper ? – YES Did he shield the ball from the goalkeeper with his stick or body to prevent a legitimate tackle ? – YES Did he (turn) into a position between the ball and the goalkeeper ? YES Did the goalkeeper attempt (demonstrating an intention) to play it the ball when within playing distance of it and from a position where a tackle would have been made except for the positioning of the player in possession of the ball? - YES
(Both questions from a previous version of the rulebook in a section headed Advice to Umpires, Rule Guidance has not changed regarding ‘attempt’ and ‘within playing distance of the ball’).
The attacker possibly completes the turn to (deliberately) shield the ball slightly before the goalkeeper is within playing distance of it, but he then maintains and tries to develop that shielding position, to move past the goalkeeper while shielding the ball with his body, when the goalkeeper IS within playing distance (the attacker does not succeed in ‘rolling’ around the goalkeeper as he intended, because he momentarily loses control of the ball and leaves it behind his feet and has to reach for it).
The attacker is not a player in the act of receiving the ball but a player in controlled possession of it, so he has no right at all (is forbidden) to shield the ball from the goalkeeper once the goalkeeper IS within playing distance of it, not even momentarily (a receiver in the act of receiving is allowed *(see footnote) to shield the ball, but only for the time it takesto control the ball prior to moving away with it or passing it away)
The Rule is clear enough 9.12 Players must not obstruct an opponent who is attempting to play the ball. Why is it not being applied?
Ignorance of the Rule is no excuse, it’s in the rulebook. Maybe no-one has the strength or the will to argue about the meaning of words? Words like ‘attempting’ – which I think means the same as the previous (butinfinitely clearer) ‘demonstrating an intent to play the ball‘.- or to discuss the timing issues i.e. the difference between the time allowed to a receiver of the ball to control it and move away with it and the (zero) time allowed to a player in possession to carry out the prohibited action of shielding it from an opponent once that opponent IS within playing distance.
Maybe the words“who is within playing distance” are the problem. Umpires may think it okay if a player turns and shields the ball a fraction of a second before an opponent comes within playing distance of it – perhaps it is, even if done with the sole purpose of shielding the ball - but if the ball holder does not then move away with the ball to maintain distance, is that okay? No that is not possible, the ball holder is permitted to move away with the ball, there is no indication that a ball holder may, having turned, then remain stationary while shielding the ball from a tackler – and moving towards (into) a tackler while shielding the ball is clearly forbidden.
The prohibition of standing still while shielding the ball instead of “is permitted to move away with it…” would have been clearer and in line with Rules being formatted in a prohibitive or directive style – such prohibition was contained in previous rulebooks. The problem with complete rewrites as occurred in 1995/6 and again in 2004 is that often perfectly adequate and sometimes even better worded Rule and Rule Guidance is ‘cleared away’ at the same time as that which is not so good. * (footnote)
For example
(c) the ball is within playing distance or could be played if no obstruction had taken place. (better than within playing distance and attempting to play the ball because the meaning of attempting is disputed – see the video clips on Obstruction on the Dartfish website)
All the below advice disappeared with the removal of the Interpretation section of the 2003 rulebook, when Interpretation (from the back of the rulebook) was amalgamated with Guidance for Players and Umpires (which was – and is – embedded in Conduct of Play) in 2004.
Umpires should be aware of players who are in possession of the ball who: - back into an opponent; - turn and try to push past an opponent; - shield the ball with body, leg or stick and stand still when under pressure; - drag the ball near their back foot when moving down the side-line or along the back-line; - shield the ball with the stick to prevent a legitimate tackle.
All of which are actions that are still contrary to the intent of the Rule i.e. obstructive play, but not all of which are now penalised.
The penalty stroke decision of the umpire in the video clip was a travesty, he should have awarded a free to the defence. Amazingly umpires justify such decisions by pointing out that no one complained (in this case not true but the complaint was brief and muted). Do umpires really want players to complain and believe a decision must be correct if players just accept it ?
* Footnote. The curious might wonder why I mention ‘ a receiving player’ – why there is mention of ‘a receiving player’ in the Rule at all – and why there should be a difference in the application of the Obstruction Rule between when a player is receiving the ball and when a player is already in controlled possession of the ball.
The first player of the Blue team who plays the ball in the video clip, does so while receiving the ball and while there is an opponent within playing distance of the ball, who is obviously attempting to play the ball – why is that not obstruction?
Prior to 1992/3 it would have been, an umpire would have penalised the Blue team player as soon as it was apparent that he was going to be shielding the ball from his close marker. Penalty was applied quickly to avoid the tackler ‘demonstrating’ too physically that he was being obstructed when it was obvious that the direct path to the ball was blocked by an opponent. ‘Vigorous demonstration’ from a player within playing distance of the ball, that he was being obstructed, could cause bad feeling and possibly even injury and retaliation.
There was an obvious problem with this application, it demanded a good level of skill to do the most basic thing necessary to play hockey – accept and take control of the ball – a fast, fit and determined ‘marker’ could make receiving the ball impossible, certainly for the novice and also usually for the less talented player, even if the marker possessed little hockey skill himself.
This put people off taking up hockey; unlike soccer, it was too difficult to get sufficient skill to get started and get enough free possession of the ball to enjoy playing at a very early stage.
The highly skilled played could of course make appropriately timed lead runs towards the ball and gain sufficient time and space to turn over it to face an oncoming opponent – and even use the speed of the following opponent to elude him – somewhat like a matador avoiding a bull. Once sufficient skill was attained the tables were turned, taking the ball from a team of players with good stick and footwork is very difficult – especially if individuals know when and how to pass the ball and support each other well.
In the 1992/3 there was a change to the interpretation and application of the Rule but only in-so-far as a player in the act of receiving the ball was concerned. A receiver – even if closely marked by an opponent i.e. with a ‘marking’ opponent within playing reach of the ball- was permitted to be facing in any direction while receiving the ball (the most efficient way of stating that a player could be facing his own goal without for example, excluding players facing their own defensive corners or the side-lines ) provided that having received the ball and controlled it the receiver then immediately moved away from the opponent or passed the ball away. The change transformed hockey.
Unfortunately the powers that be thought that there would be a greater (and better) transformation if the receiver of a ball was not obliged to immediately move away from an opponent – to put and maintain distance between them or to turn with the ball to face the opponent’s goal – and made what appeared to be a slight change to the wording of the Guidance.
The rest of the saga is a long and sorry tale. The revised attitude to ‘receiving players’ drifted into the way the Rule was applied to players already in controlled possession of the ball (this was a lot easier to umpire – ignoring an offence is no problem at all once players get used to the fact that that is what is going to happen).
By 2009 (the relevance of being ‘a receiving player’ having long vanished, there was (and is) only the odd and unexplained remnant :- A stationary player receiving the ball is permitted to face in any direction., andthe FIH HRB (now the FIH Rules Committee) felt it necessary to add a clause to Rule Guidance to forbid a player already in possession of the ball to turn away from a close opponent and interpose his body to shield the ball from that opponent.
The list of things an umpire was advised to watch for by 2003 included:- back into an opponent; turn and try to push past an opponent; shield the ball with body, leg or stick and stand still when under pressure; drag the ball near their back foot when moving down the side-line or along the back-line; none of which prior to the minor Guidance adjustment had been encountered in the game.
But umpires didn’t watch for these things (or only watched but did not penalise), so long before 2009 – as can be seen in the more recent video clip above – umpires and players had no concept of the offence of obstruction by ball-shielding if it did not also involve physical contact – and even that has been ‘eroded’ in recent years. Player commonly turn into/around close markers to ‘roll them’ and make physical contact while doing so. In fact, as can be seen in the clip, if the ‘rolling’ is not successful and there is contact between the players, it is nearly always the opponent who is attempting to tackle who is penalised: so what does Players must not obstruct an opponent who is attempting to play the ball. actually mean?
A stationary player receiving the ball is permitted to face in any direction will possibly soon be deleted, as positioned as it is in isolation in the present Rule Guidance, it makes no sense at all, and why it is there has long been forgotten.
Is hockey better than it would be with a prohibition of illegal ball shielding properly enforced? I believe the answer to that is “No, absolutely not”. Obstructive play is now at the other extreme to the way it was in 1990, a sensible balance needs to be restored, so that facility is given to receive the ball from defence without being penalised for ball shielding or ‘clattered by a tackler’, but players in possession of the ball are not unfairly using their bodies to shield the ball from or past an opponent, but once again rely solely on passing and stickwork to retain possession of the ball and create scoring opportunities.
Field Hockey. Rules. Alternative to penalty corner.
There is I believe a need for a penalty restart that is not a penalty-corner because the award of a penalty corner is too severe a ‘punishment’ in many cases.
It could take the form of a free-ball to the attacking side (which can be played directly into the circle, but not lifted at all) centrally on the opponent’s 23m line – possibly with opponents not permitted to be within 10m of the ball until it has been played.
There are some easy candidates for such an award. Incidents that at one time led to a bully restart (or still could) but now result in the award of a penalty corner.
Ball intentionally over base-line by defender – (the long corner could also be replaced with an more advantageous restart, so all over base-line balls off the defending side).
Ball accidentally caught and held in goalkeeping equipment.
Ball squeezed directly upwards from between opposing sticks or deflected upwards off a goalkeeper in the circle where there is the possibility of danger if it is allowed to fall among players.
There are other incidents, which may be considered more contentious, but should not be penalty situations at all.
Accidental foot/ball contact by a defender in circle from which benefit (less than directly preventing a goal) is gained by the player hit. (At the moment not an offence but universally penalised as if it were.
The ‘gains unfair benefit’ clause needs to be restored to enable the proper award of a penalty stroke when a goal is directly prevented by a ball/body contact – provided of course there has been no prior offence by the attacking side, such as a dangerously propelled ball. The award of the suggested penalty restart would be for other ‘benefit gained’ but accidental contact.
A penalty corner should never be awarded for an involuntary (unintentional) ball/body contact, particularly a forced contact, as such contact is not an offence.
A penalty stoke should be awarded when a goal from a legitimate shot (or a deflection from another defender arising from a legitimate shot) is directly prevented by a ball/body contact by a defending field player, in order to discourage reckless defending – self endangerment – i.e. as a safety measure and also for fairness to the attacking team.
Out-runner at penalty corner, who is trying to play at the ball with the stick, hit below knee with a shot towards the goal when within 5m of the striker. (Conflict within the Rules resulting in a Mandatory penalty corner for a ball/body contact that is not, according to the Guidance to Rule 9.11.,an offence)
Defender playing an above shoulder shot at the goal that is off-target.(A ridiculous penalty because the Advice to Umpires contained in the Rules of Hockey makes it clear that an offence should not be penalised unless opponents are disadvantaged. An attacker cannot play at an over shoulder height ball and the defender playing it may keep it in play by prevent it going out over the base-line - which is of advantage to the attacking side, not disadvantage.)
The two lists may not be complete, there are however at least six situations where an alternative to the penalty corner might be more appropriate, which combined, must occur thousands of times in each season.
The Own Goal Rule has just been introduced (Rules of Hockey 2013-15) as a Mandatory Experiment (it has been a Rule in the EHL for some time) because, we are told, umpires are occasionally unsure if the ball was touched in the circle at all or unsure if the ball was last touched off the stick of an attacker – a difficulty that possibly occurs a few times in each season. I find the reason given for the introduction of the Own Goal unconvincing, I believe this is in fact another misguided attempt to make the game more ‘exciting’ or ‘spectacular’. It will lead to a few more injuries each season as the ball will be ‘wellied’ into the circle, possibly a foot or so off the ground (because such raising of a hit is not currently penalised), probably from somewhere between the 23m line and the hash-circle, in the hope of ‘getting something’ i.e. a leg contact (which will result in the award of a penalty corner even if it should not) or a deflection. It is not impossible that the ball may be drag-flicked into the circle from beyond the 23m line even from a free-ball. It is inevitable that some high deflections off such speculative hits (and flicks if they are permitted to occur) will strike players and will cause injury.
I cannot see how the introduction of the Own Goal fits with the FIH statement “The emphasis is on safety” or even with the recently introduced ban on playing any fee ball awarded within the opposition’s 23m area, into the circle ; I believe this suggestion does fit a ‘reasonable safety’ agenda. Reducing the number of penalty corners awarded is of itself a safety measure, as the defending of a penalty corner is probably the most dangerous aspect of hockey.
Field Hockey Rules. Unfair Benefit Gained. Disadvantaged.
Edited 2nd May 2013
In the Umpiring Section of the Rules of Hockey (which is where all the published umpire briefings and advice should be contained) under the heading
2 Applying the Rules.
there is a sub-heading 2.2. Advantagewhich advises:
a. it is not necessary for every offence to be penalised when no benefit is gained by the offender ; unnecessary interruptions to the flow of the match cause undue delay and irritation
b. when the Rules have been broken, an umpire must apply advantage if this is the most severe penalty
c. possession of the ball does not automatically mean there is an advantage ; for advantage to apply, the player/team with the ball must be able to develop their play
d. having decided to play advantage, a second opportunity must not be given by reverting to the original penalty
The crux of the message is that the umpire has discretion about applying penalty when an Offence has been committed. There is a deviation introduced in clause (b) which refers to “when the Rules have been broken”, this is a deviation from clause (a) because a Breach of Rule may not necessarily be an Offence, We are given some examples in the Rules of Hockey of Breaches of Rule (breaking of Rules) that are not offences, particularly in the Guidance to Rule 9.11 :-
Rule 9.11. Field players must not stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their body.
It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player.The player only commits an offenceif they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball or if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way.
It is not an offence if the ball hits the hand holding the stick but would otherwise have hit the stick.
We may argue indefinitely about the difference between ‘voluntarily’ and ‘intentionally’ and what is meant by or if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way , because no one seems to know the answers, but both those clauses refer to actions that are Breaches of Rule but are not, or are not always, offences.
To continue :- “an umpire must apply advantage if this is the most severe penalty” to call the applying of advantage a more severe penalty seems to me an odd use of language, as what is meant is that penalty should not be applied. It might have been better put, “an umpire should not penalise an offence if doing so would disadvantage the team offended against.”
There is another potential source of confusion connected to this in the Penalties Section, where ironically the second sentence is along the lines I suggested above (which avoided the double negative).
12 Penalties 12.1 Advantage : a penalty is awarded only when a player or team has been disadvantaged by an opponent breaking the Rules. If awarding a penalty is not an advantage to the team which did not break the Rules, play must continue.(note ‘must’ not ‘may’)
The potential confusion is contained in “has been disadvantaged by an opponent breaking the Rules” when the only examples of a player being in breach of Rule and not at the same time committing an offence are:-
the exceptions given in Rule 9.11 mentioned above (which appear to be ignored)
the intentional playing of the ball over the base-line by a defender (a silly rule);
a defender, while attempting to use the stick to play the ball, hit below the knee from within 5m with a shot at the goal during a penalty corner (an unjust and dangerous rule)
The sentence would be better put “If awarding a penalty would be a disadvantage to the team offended against play must continue.
Being clear about what an Offence is and how it may or does differ from a Breach of Rule would go some way to sorting out the present muddle between advantage, not disadvantaged and gained benefit, as well as when and if a penalty ought to be applied. We could at least avoid this sort of nonsense
“Being forced, the defender’s foot contact with the ball was involuntary and unavoidable, but it disadvantaged an opponent and so a penalty corner was awarded.“ There is a Breach of Rule by the defender there, but no Offence and there should be no penalty, disadvantaging an opponent is not an Offence – players spend the entire playing time legitimately trying to disadvantage their opponents – for an Offence there has to be either an illegal action or an action that is illegal in certain circumstances (which should be clearly set out) for example, intention.
The opposite is this “The defender stuck his leg out and deliberately kicked the ball but, as the attacker was able to regain possession of it and play on with advantage, a team penalty was not called for” (a personal penalty may however have followed after the event).
It has proved,to be extraordinarily difficult to get umpires to assimilate and accommodate the absence of the previous exception to the present Guidance to Rule 9.11.; an exception that was deleted firstly in 2006 and finally in 2009 (on this the third occasion this gained advantage or gained benefit exception clause has been removed. The previous time was in major rewrite of the rulebook in 1995/6 ).
The corresponding Rule of 1995/6 is I think an interesting contrast to the present version, although some of the same ambiguities and conflicts are present.
13.1.2 Use of body, hands, feet
A player shall not a. stop the ball with the hand or catch it There is nothing to prevent players using their hands to protect themselves from dangerously raised balls. b. intentionally stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their bodies
It is not an offence if the ball hits the foot or body of a player unless that player: • has moved into the path of the ball, or • made no effort to avoid being hit, or • was positioned with the clear intention of stopping the ball (with the body was added later)
Players should not be penalised when the ball is played at them from a short distance.
c. use the foot or leg to support the stick in a tackle.
It was also of course an offence to force a ball contact on an opponent and to raise the ball at an opponent (it still is in some circumstances an offence to raise the ball at an opponent and ‘forcing’ ball/body contact is supposed to be covered by ‘other Rules’,but one would not know this from a casual reading of the 2013 rulebook).
Back to the present:
An involuntary (unintentional) ball/body contact is a Breach of Rule(because the word intentionally has been removed from the Rule) but it is NOT an Offence and therefore there is no penalty stipulated for such Breach of Rule. There is currently no exception to that statement. Advantaged gained, benefit gained, disadvantaged opponents, PREVENTING A CERTAIN GOAL, are all irrelevant. The last a case of ‘throwing the baby out with the bathwater’ and an embarrassment that needs to be corrected with an amended gained unfair benefit clause in that case (and perhaps in only one other – an unintentional ball/body contact by a player who is in possession of the ball).
What to do with this following Guidance?
It is not an offence if the ball hits the hand holding the stick but would otherwise have hit the stick.
(better written It is not an offence if the ball hits a hand holding the stick but would otherwise have hit the stick).
Delete it as covered by the Rule?
Rule 9.11. Field players must not intentionally play the ball with any part of their body.
Job done, nothing more is needed for the Rule.
Rule Guidance could be added to cover an unintentional ball/body contact that prevents a certain goal, in the absence of a prior offence by opponents (such as a ball raised above a given height and/or from within a given distance at the player hit with the ball). Such body/ball contact should be penalised with a penalty stroke. Not to award a penalty stroke in such circumstances is likely to lead to reckless defending i.e. intentional self-endangerment.
At this stage, a ‘mythology’ having developed about ‘acceptance of risk‘ and ‘positioning with the intention of using the body to play the ball‘ or ‘backing the stick with the body in case the ball is missed with the stick‘ which has led to the view that there is no such thing as an ‘on target’ dangerous shot at the goal, it is necessary to point out in Guidance that an assumption of intent to use the body to play the ball based on prior positioning especially when it is beyond playing distance of the ball, is both unsound and unreasonable.
An ‘acceptance of risk’ is confined to acceptance that there is risk of unintentional dangerous play such as deflections and mis-hits (which should nonetheless be penalised) it does not include acceptance of a risk that the player hit will be deliberately targeted or that the ball will be played at them in a reckless way i.e. without consideration for the safety of other players on the part of the player propelling the ball.
In other Rule Guidance, to Rule 9.8. for example, umpires could usefully be reminded:- “A raised shot has to be made at goal, not deliberately (and/or dangerously) at a defender standing either in goal or between the goal and the striker“ (part in colour italics taken from The Lifted Ball Gawley 2001). Which brings us to the need for a fit for purpose definition of a dangerously played ball, not least to avoid the circular arguments concerning what is and is not legitimate evasive action and how the umpire should respond when evasive action is not possible.
Frighteningly bizarre conduct from Internet field hockey forum moderators, they scold forum contributors for daring to question their judgement on a Rules matter and call their opinions “frighteningly bizarre”, when in fact it is the moderators who are wrong.
The issue was whether or not a ball raised at a goalkeeper’s head could or should be considered dangerous play. The true answer, as usual, begins “It depends…” and is “Yes”or “No” or “Maybe”.
For the purposes of the Rules concerning a dangerously played ball, a goalkeeper is not distinguished in any way from either “a defender” or “an opponent”, so logically (but perhaps not reasonably) any ‘dangerously at’ Rule which applies to field-players also applies to goalkeepers.
Should anyone think that bizarre they should take the matter up with the FIH Rules Committee (before the issue of the next rulebook in 2015) so any suggested change in the status of a goalkeeper vis-á-vis the dangerously played ball can be considered and an FIH RC and FIH Executice approved amendment made to the Rules of Hockey. Otherwise it’s conceivable that umpires might apply their own interpretations or be ‘advised’ in a UMB to treat goalkeepers differently.
Okay, that last sentence is ‘tongue-in-cheek’, goalkeepers are obviously better protected by the equipment they are required/permitted to wear than field-players are and don’t play in the same way – they deliberately put their body in the way of the ball and are permitted to do so – and there should be different Rules for goalkeepers in respect to the dangerously played ball in such circumstances. But does that mean they cannot be endangered and excuse reckless play by attacking players? No and no and nor does it mean that Umpire Managers et al. can invent such Rules or coach as if they already exist.What it means is that the Rule anomaly should be addressed.
A ball can break a face grid or dent a helmet if propelled hard enough (which may mean at the very least the goalkeeper cannot continue as a fully equipped goalkeeper if there is no replacement helmet) and there is no good reason anyway why an attacker should be propelling the ball at high velocity from less than 5m at the head of a goalkeeper, even if the goalkeeper is wearing a helmet. The ‘bottom line’, the ‘clincher’ in answer to the question asked, is that propelling the ball at above knee height at a player from within 5m of that player is currently a dangerous play offence even if ‘in practice’ such an offence is not penalised if the player is a fully equipped goalkeeper and the the goalkeeper is up-right (be it standing, kneeling or sitting) and facing the striker.
When ‘practice’ does not follow Rule, umpires not only put players at risk, they also put themselves at a different kind of risk. It is not in the least bizarre to question ‘practice’ or to wonder why, in regard to the dangerously played ball here are not special Rules for goalkeepers, or to ask where the ‘lines’ concerning the endangerment of a goalkeeper are ‘drawn’. A real danger is that players other than the goalkeeper will be injured by deflections or rebounds when high close-range shots are made at goalkeeper or that shooters will take the same attitude to shooting at defending field-players as they currently do when shooting towards a fully equipped goalkeeper (which is the case).
I understand that in the USA at some levels of play, propelling a ball at above shoulder height at a goalkeeper i.e. at the head, is penalised as an offence. Once again a sports authority outside the FIH has shown the way. The FIH Rules Committee would do well to at least consider if the lead given fits with their declared ‘Emphasis on safety’, because current umpiring ‘practice ‘ in this area certainly does not. But umpires are declaring that they are “doing what ‘the FIH’ want”. (By “the FIH” they seem to mean what they themselves want and many of them have no hesitation in declaring themselves to be authoritative in matters of Rule and to try to ‘yellow card’ or ‘red card’ dissenting opinion, as if in charge of a match on a pitch, when engaged in what should be a discussion on a forum).
Take as an example of difference of opinion, a declaration made by one contributor concerning the fully equipped goalkeeper, to the effect that an umpire should behave towards a goalkeeper with regard to the dangerously played ball as if a goalkeeper was wearing all the protective equipment he or she was permitted to wear (and of the best quality?). I would take the opposite view. I think umpires should umpire as if goalkeepers in general were wearing only the minimum protective equipment required as listed in the Rules of Hockey to be considered ‘fully equipped’, which is helmet, leg-guards, gloves and kickers, because there is the possibility that this is what a ‘fully equipped’ goalkeeper will be wearing.
The goalkeeper is not ‘at fault’ for wearing only the minimum protection required, but an umpire may be at fault for umpiring as if a goalkeeper (or all goalkeepers) were completely protected from all possible ball impact. The Rules in regard to ‘fully equipped’ are obviously outdated, but it needs to be borne in mind that the Rules of Hockey are issued for all players and officials, at all levels, and not every goalkeeper is going to have the maximum possible protection. This is possibly a matter for Rule Variation at International level and (with permission) League Rules at other levels, but no matter how well protected a goalkeeper may be, that does not negate existing Rules or allow recklessly dangerous propelling of the ball at any player, including a goalkeeper.
Beyond the certainty of ‘within 5m’ any ball raised at another player is dangerous only if the on-pitch umpire at the time considers it to be so, because ‘legitimate evasive action’ is a subjective judgement. The ‘judgement’ made will depend on what the umpire has been instructed or coached to do in such circumstances and here we move into an area that really is frighteningly bizarre.
2008 Olympics.
2010 World Cup.
What could be more frightening or bizarre than for umpires to give attackers the idea that an ‘on target’ shot at the goal is not, and cannot in any circumstances, be considered dangerous play, or treating all defenders in front of the goal in the circle as if they were fully equipped goalkeepers AND as if there is a different dangerously played ball Rule for fully equipped goalkeepers, but not describing that Rule – that is more than just bizarre.
(Add to that bizarre Rule Guidance from the Rules of Hockey that a shot, if going wide of the goal, may be considered dangerous play if it hits a defender – and if a defender attempts to play an above should shot, that is going wide of the goal,with his stick, a penalty corner will be awarded) ,
Who would not question such ‘logic’ from both ‘umpiring practice’ and from the FIH Rules Committee?
Well forum moderators obviously, who coincidentally, happen to be umpires and of the kind who won’t tolerate any criticism of their view.
I wrote an article some time ago about a field hockey Umpire Coaching paper entitled The Lifted Ball , written in 2001 by John Gawley (then a FIH Level 3 Umpire Coach). I described it as the most conflicted document I had read about a Rule of Hockey. The Rule concerns the dangerously played (raised) ball. http://martinzigzag.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/contradictions-and-conflicts/
This paper is however still the only one to have been written on the subject by an FIH Umpire Coach at any level and the only contribution to the information concerning a dangerously raised ball provided by the Umpire Manager’s Briefing (for use in FIH Tournaments but considered to be generally useful) is this: -
Ball off the Ground
Blow only in dangerous situations everywhere on the pitch - forget lifted, think danger
Low balls over defenders sticks in a controlled manner that hit half shin pad are not dangerous
Which is of very little use to anyone who requires a description of what might be considered dangerous play. The FIH Umpire Coaching Videos are also devoid of any instruction in this area.
Those familiar with hockey will be aware of the conflicted manner in which the Rule is applied (or not applied) in practice. Many new to hockey watching the game today would have no idea that there was such a thing as a dangerously propelled ball: we now have umpires forcefully declaring that an on target shot at the goal cannot be dangerous play (I first heard this said in televised commentary during the 2008 Olympics. It was repeated by an umpire to a player at the 2010 World Cup, but nothing to this effect has been published by the FIH ). There is an obvious need for a clearly written Rule that is based on objective criteria, rather than almost entirely on the judgement of ‘legitimate evasive action’ – which is ’in practice’ ignored (such judgement is not entirely based on LEA only because raising the ball at an opponent who is within 5m is prohibited – but this too is often ignored).
In 2005 an ‘updated’ version of the 2001 paper, entitled The Raised Ball and Danger was published, It is reproduced in full at the end of this article. Unfortunately the ‘update’ is in fact nothing of the sort.
The facility for a defender to play at an on target shot at the the goal at above shoulder height was introduced as a Mandatory Experiment in 2003 and it is beyond belief that Gawley while updating his own paper in 2005 would not have taken that Rule change into account and amended his paper accordingly. The Rule change was adopted into Full Rule in 2005 and by August of that year Gawley would have known it would be. The prohibition on raising the ball into the circle was withdrawn in 2004 but the ban is still present in the ‘updated’ document. Did John Gawley revise the paper personally? I very much doubt it. The ‘revision’ is just a ‘hatchet job’ which seems to have been carried out (by someone too lazy and/or too stupid) to remove parts of the original in conflict with (sic) current umpiring practice in regard to the raised shot towards the goal.
For example this:- A raised shot has to be made at goal, not deliberately at a defender standing either in goal or between the goal and the striker. from the 2001 paper has been cut from the 2005 version. That is not updating to reflect any Rule change by the then HRB (which was renamed the FIH Rules Committee in 2011) : no responsible Rule Authority would make a change which permitted deliberate targeting of opponents: the HRB certainly did not and the FIH Rules Committee have not.
This (horribly conflicted) summary passage from the 2001 paper :-
During open play, rising shots at goal are permitted provided the defending players have time to defend the goal rather than themselves. No player should EVER be permitted to raise the ball, anywhere on the pitch, that is dangerous to other players.
If defenders other than goalkeepers dressed in protective clothing or helmeted “kicking backs” (who have goalkeepers’ privileges in the circle), elect to defend their goal, then a shot that would have been permitted against a fully-equipped goalkeeper should be permitted against them. And if they stop or play the ball with their bodies or sticks above their shoulders, they should be penalised unless they were endangered.(my bold underline) has had the last four words removed in the 2005 edition, but the outdated prohibition on a defender playing an above shoulder on target shot is still there – that makes no sense whatsoever in an ‘update’ .
This paper was not just “edited to bring it up to date” (circa 2005) it was ‘butchered’ to better reflect (sic) current practice.
Of course the removal of unless they were endangered – which entirely changes what was written in the sentence which contains it and the previous sentence – could have been an accident, but that seems unlikely, especially in view of the other deletion. It is ironic that the word ‘danger’ was introduced in the new title but reference to incidents of dangerous play were removed from the ‘updated’ paper
Although absolutely nothing else has been published on the subject since 2001, even the 2005 version is seen as ‘old hat’ by those who consider themselves to be ‘in the know’. This, for example, from both papers:- ”the same conditions for dealing with a dropping ball apply for shots at goal as elsewhere on the pitch” has been ‘over-ruled’ by an FIH Umpire (who possibly did not know of the existence of these papers) who declared on an Internet hockey forum “aerial Rules do not apply to shots at the goal “. This individual described those who would apply the existing published Rules concerning a falling raised ball as having ” stubborn and outdated ideas about what constitutes danger.“
THE 2005 ‘UPDATE’.
The Raised Ball and Danger by J M GAWLEY
INTRODUCTION
No player should ever be put into a position of self-defence against a ball put into the air at any height, be it 15 or 50 centimetres.
A player having to face a ball approaching in the air should have a clear view of the full flight of that ball and also have time either to
move out of its way, or to play or attempt to play it in a legitimate and safe manner So far as Goalkeepers are concerned, they
deliberately put themselves "into the firing line" but are equipped to do so. Nevertheless, even they can be forced into self-protection
rather than protection of their goal by dangerously-raised balls.
INTENTIONAL LIFT
Lift at an Opponent
If the ball is intentionally put into the air at an opponent at any height anywhere on the pitch in contravention of Rule 9.8: “Players must not intentionally raise the ball from a hit except for a shot at goal” the player who raises the ball is in breach of the Rule. Note that an accidental lift should not be penalised unless it is dangerous in itself or causes danger, e.g. by striking someone. A ball lifted over another player’s stick is NOT an offence unless dangerous. Flicks and scoops are permissible but not if towards an opponent within 5m. Note that it is permissible intentionally to raise the ball for a shot at goal.
Tackling Lift
There is nothing in the Rules to prevent any player in possession of the ball from lifting it over the stick of an opponent to resist a tackle,
be it in the outfield, in the circle, or entering the circle. The last point is important: where the ball is lifted in such a manner over an
opponent's stick and enters the circle while still in the air, there is NO offence.Tactical LiftWhen a ball is deliberately raised in a legitimate manner (normally a scoop or flick) anywhere on the pitch the umpire should decide
upon its merits. This form of play is used for tactical purposes, often to reverse the opposing defence. In general, it is fair to say that
players who raise the ball in this manner consciously try to avoid danger to anyone in the flight path of the ball. The umpire is therefore
seeking reasons why such a raised ball SHOULD be penalised. A player receiving a dropping ball should be given time and space in
which safely to do so without real or threatened interference from an opponent (Rule 9.9):”Players must not approach within 5 metres
of an opponent receiving a falling raised ball until it has been received, controlled and is on the ground.” Note that such a ball MAY land
in the circle without penalty unless it has been intentionally HIT into the air.
If a player of each team is already in the place where the ball will land, i.e. not having moved into that space, then any danger from the falling ball is caused by the player who initially raised it. Accordingly, a free hit should quickly be awarded against the player who raised the ball.However, if a player of each team moves to a position where a ball that has already been raised will land, the first player to arrive must be permitted to play the ball and the opponent must keep clear. But, if both are likely to arrive at the same time, then the player of the team that raised the ball must remain clear until the ball has landed and should be penalised for failure to do so.
ACCIDENTAL LIFT
On the other hand, the ball is often raised accidentally, usually by a stick interfering with the flight of the ball, rather than by any deliberate attempt to play it. In such circumstances, the ball is likely to fly upwards in an unpredictable trajectory, thus being both dangerous in itself and likely to cause danger. A ball hit some 15 cm in the air into a crowded circle is an example. The Umpire, therefore, is likely to be seeking reasons why this raised ball should NOT be penalised but should wait to determine whether there is actual danger.
INTERPRETATION
No matter where on the field the ball is raised, and no matter what the circumstances of the lift, the umpire must always judge whether
a player has been genuinely endangered in any of the ways described. Umpires should be on their guard against players who simulate
ducking out of the way of raised balls simply to try to "con" them into thinking that such a ball is dangerous. Similarly, umpires should not
be misled by defenders, often in goal, who allow themselves to be hit by the ball so as to be able to claim that the shot was dangerous.The same standards of judgement must be applied wherever and whenever the ball is raised. It is therefore important that umpires
recognise, and agree before each game according to the level and playing conditions of that game, what is the likely distance inside
which those particular players are likely to have to defend their own persons instead of playing the ball properly. Other factors need to
be considered for raised shots at goal, however.
RAISED SHOTS AT GOAL IN OPEN PLAY
The goal is there to be shot at. The goalkeeper is well-protected and has no grounds for protest about high shots at goal. So far as any
other defenders are concerned, if they stand in the goal to defend high shots, they must accept the penalty if the ball hits them contrary
to Rule 9.10: Field players must not stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their bodies.” They can be said
, perhaps, to have arrogated to themselves the duty of goalkeeper without having goalkeeper's privileges. High shots include hits, flicks
and scoops.
Having said this, it must nevertheless be remembered that no player should ever be put to the necessity of self-defence, and that includes goalkeepers. Although properly protected, goalkeepers can still be injured by balls projected at them from so short a range and in such a manner that they are unable to adopt a naturally protective posture.
In high level games, with physically fit, young, skilled players, it is possible that the minimum safe distance for a rising shot is about 3 m
etres. In less skilled games, that distance will probably be not less than 9 metres and could be more. In all cases, the distances may
increase dependent on other circumstances, not least whether the players defending the goal have a clear view of the whole flight of the
ball from the moment that it is first propelled upwards. Judgement of what is dangerous must necessarily be subjective. Perhaps the
soundest advice for the umpire is to consider that any raised ball is dangerous unless proved otherwise. Players close to or near the line
of a shot at goal must have time and room to react safely and play the ball legitimately.
In general, it is probably fair to say that a rising ball that would not be permitted on the grounds of safety in the outfield should not be permitted, for the same reasons, in the circle, whether for a shot at goal or, indeed, for clearing a shot at goal – a goalkeeper’s kick, for example. The exception is that the intentionally raised hit is permitted in the circle for a shot at goal; otherwise the same parameters apply.
Note, however, that this advice is concerned mainly with high shots in OPEN PLAY. In these circumstances, there are usually few players
in the circle and, as often as not, the shot is made in a one-on-one situation. During Penalty Corners, where numbers of players are
required by the Rules to operate within the circle, other considerations apply, all concerned primarily with Safety.SummaryDuring open play, rising shots at goal are permitted provided the defending players have time to defend the goal rather than themselves.
No player should EVER be permitted to raise the ball, anywhere on the pitch, that is dangerous to other players. If defenders other than
goalkeepers dressed in protective clothing or helmeted "kicking backs" (who have goalkeepers' privileges in the circle), elect to defend
their goal, then a shot that would have been permitted against a fully-equipped goalkeeper should be permitted against them. Note that
any defender may use any part of the front of the stick at any height to defend a specific shot at goal (Rule 9.6) but, if the shot was going
to miss, a penalty corner must be awarded. Other than that, any raised ball in the circle and its defence must be judged on its merits,
i.e., was the shot dangerous in itself or, alternatively, did it cause danger?
RAISED SHOTS AT GOAL AT PENALTY CORNERS AND FROM CORNERS
Players in the CircleThe Penalty Corner demands a maximum of 5 defenders behind their back or goal-line and places no limit on the number of attackers
round the circle, though in practice the attackers usually number six or seven. There can thus be twelve or so players in the circle during
the conduct of a Penalty Corner. For a Corner, and for other forms of Hit-in and Free Hit to the attackers where there has been a delay
in play so as to allow players to gather in and near the circle, there is no limit to the numbers of players who may be in the circle.Although hits to the attack from the area of corner flags (corners, hits-in & free hits) are taken in open play, they are considered here
with the Penalty Corner as likely to cause crowding within the circle.It can thus be seen that any ball raised into or within the circle in such circumstances has a great potential for danger. Such crowding
underlines the need for umpires to judge whether players close to or in the flight path of a raised ball have time properly to react to it.
This is not to say that all raised balls in the circle are dangerous, nor that balls raised unintentionally into the circle are necessarily
dangerous, but merely to indicate the potential for danger and hence the need for acute awareness and observation by the umpire.
Penalty Corner
The defenders (including the Goalkeeper) are prohibited from deliberately raising the ball from a hit within the circle, or indeed outside it
- Rule 9.8 applies.The attackers, however, MAY deliberately raise the ball from a hit or other type of shot in the circle, but only for a shot at goal - not for a
hit across the circle, for example. The one caveat to this permission is that the FIRST hit at goal at a Penalty Corner must comply with
Rule 13.2k: “if the first shot at goal is a hit (as opposed to a push, flick or scoop), the ball must cross the goal-line, or be on a path which
would have resulted in its crossing the goal-line, at a height of not more than 460mm (the height of the backboard) before any deflection,
for a goal to be scored.”Generally, the ball that is raised in the circle has a possible element of danger. But remember that any player may raise the ball over the
stick of an opponent to resist a tackle.Once the first hit at goal in a Penalty Corner has been made, all subsequent hits may be at any height consonant with safety, as already
described. However, still with the Penalty Corner, any other stroke to raise the ball may be made at any time, with no limit being placed
on the height of the ball at any part of its flight. The only caveat on these forms of shot - usually scoops or flicks - is that of safety. In this
context, if a defender in a normal stance within 5 metres of the first shot at goal is hit by the ball below the knees, a penalty corner should
be awarded. If the defender is hit above the knee, a free hit should be awarded to the defending team. And let us remember that the
Penalty Corner Rule - specifically those sections applying to the first hit - ceases to apply if the ball goes beyond 5 metres from the circle
before re-entering it (Rule 13.2m).The Scooped BallThe ball that is flicked or scooped from near the inside edge of the circle so that it goes high over all heads and falls so that it will enter
the goal just below the crossbar is not very likely to be dangerous when falling; the player(s) in the goal-mouth will see the ball raised, will
see it during its flight, and will have time to decide how to defend the falling ball. They therefore have no excuse for playing the ball with the
ir sticks whilst it is above their shoulders, for hitting the ball away in a dangerous manner, nor for using any part of their body to stop the
ball. Only if the flick or scoop is at very short range, or if there are players in the line of sight between striker and goal, might the striker
be penalised, and then usually only if the ball is still rising or if it is so low throughout its flight as to be obscured, for the receiver, by other
players.Umpires should remember that the same conditions for dealing with a dropping ball apply for shots at goal as elsewhere on the pitch
i.e. the player receiving the ball must be given time and space (5 metres) in which to receive it safely, i.e. the receiving defender should
not be harried by a close opponent.
The Rising Shot
Having accepted the caveats noted above for the Penalty Corner, let us broaden thought to embrace the crowded circle. The same considerations previously mentioned still apply, i.e. the goal is there to be shot at, and defenders who arrogate to themselves the duty of goalkeeper must accept the penalty if they prevent a goal other than legitimately with their sticks. But, given the crowding already discussed, it is even more important that players defending any raised ball, regardless of its height, should have a clear view of the ball’s trajectory and have time either to remove themselves from its path or to play or try to play the ball legitimately. If they do not have such time, the ball raised at them must be considered dangerous and penalised immediately. But umpires should be on their guard against players who deliberately allow themselves to be hit by the ball so as to be able to claim that the lift was dangerous.
It is the rising ball that is most likely to cause most danger, either because it can strike a player's body, where its energy is likely to be
absorbed, or because it can touch part of a stick and fly off unpredictably, with no loss of energy, to hit another player.
Summary
When the circle is crowded, such as at Penalty Corners and for hits from near the corner flag areas, there is a high potential for danger
from any raised ball. Umpires must be alert to the risks involved but should not overreact merely because the ball is in the air or the body
of a defender in the goal is struck by the ball. They should instead consider whether players have the necessary time and distance to avoid
physical contact with the raised ball in favour of playing or attempting to play it legitimately, and not flinch from applying the appropriate
penalty if avoiding action could have been taken.
The necessity for the first HIT at goal at a penalty corner not to cross the goal-line at a height greater than 460mm should also be borne in mind.
The Field Hockey Rule about playing the ball in a dangerous way is sparse. Much of the information about the dangerous propelling of the ball is distributed among other Rules and also has mixed into it Guidance about the playing of the ball with the body – which is,or should be, considering that a dangerously played ball is described as one that causes legitimate evasive action, an entirely different and separate matter.
Rule 9.8 Players must not play the ball dangerously or in a way which leads to dangerous play.
Players are permitted to raise the ball with a flick or scoop provided it is not dangerous. A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous.(Placed here for the purposes of this article, but taken from Rule 9.9, which is the Rule prohibiting the intentional raising of the ball with a hit – note there is no lower or minimum height given for “considered dangerous” )
A ball is considered dangerous when it causes legitimate evasive action by players.
“Play the ball dangerously” is not described nor is “play which leads to dangerous play” or “dangerous play” because these are subjective judgements made by an umpire. A ball is dangerous when it causes legitimate evasive action by players. Again, legitimate evasive action is a subjective judgement made by an umpire. We are not told on what criteria such judgements should be based, many umpires describe the process as ‘gut instinct’ and ‘selling the decision’ and seem happy with that if players don’t complain (not that players are allowed to complain, that is considered dissent.)
There are objective criteria that can be used but they apply only to the propelling of the ball within 5m of an opponent; all judgement of a ball in relation to the dangerous propelling of it from beyond 5m of an opponent is entirely subjective. This means that players can only appeal for or against dangerous play decisions when the action in question took place within 5m of the player endangered, or not endangered as the case may be; there is no appeal (video referral) possible to examine an umpire’s personal opinion that the propelling of the ball in other circumstances was or was not dangerous.What criteria would the video umpire look for? Evasive action is not based on the fact that evasive action was taken but whether or not the evasion was legitimate, and that is a personal opinion.
The lack of objective criteria when the ball is propelled at a player from beyond 5m is unsatisfactory because 5m is an unrealistic ‘cut off’ distance – and it is treated as a cut off distance although it is mentioned only as a distance within which some actions are considered dangerous - there is in fact no limit to the distance from which a ball propelled at another player may be considered dangerous to that player, but ‘in practice’ 5m is, illogically, rigidly adhered to.
The basing of “dangerously played ball” on “legitimate evasive action” i.e. the judgement of the action of the player propelling the ball being determined by the reaction of the player possibly endangered by that ball, is also illogical: there are a number of circumstances where there will be no reaction at all from the defender, the defender being unaware that the ball has been propelled in their direction and others where the velocity of the ball and the distance it was propelled from (even considerably beyond 5m) makes evasion impossible.
In addition to those problems there are problems of ‘attitude’ to the positioning of defenders, particularly when positioned between the goal and a shooter in the circle. Some umpires see evasive action as an attempt to ‘con’ the umpire into believing that a ball was propelled dangerously or see successful evasive action as a demonstration that the ball was not played dangerously – “…the player had time to get out of the way of it so not dangerous” is an often expressed view. The fact that a dangerously played ball is defined by legitimate evasive action so evasive action can be legitimate and a reason to declare a ball dangerous doesn’t seem to lodge in the minds of these people, they don’t see any contradiction between their view and the Rule Guidance given in the Rules of Hockey. The same umpires also often take the view that a player who has failed to take evasive action has remaining in the path of the ball with the intention of using the body to play it – even when there is clearly an attempt to play at the ball with the stick – such players are said to place their body behind the stick with the intention of playing the ball with the body if they miss it with the stick. (As an aside to that, the same umpires may hold the view that defenders are obliged to defend their feet with the stick, so should position the stick in front of the feet – but having positioned the feet behind the stick, if a foot is hit with the ball, there is then from the prior ‘argument’ assumed to be intention to play the ball with the foot). These conflicting ‘catch 22′ style attitudes alone are sufficient grounds for the provision of objective criteria for the judgement of a dangerously played ball, when the ball is raised at velocity at defenders, rather than the sole use of purely subjective judgement (or, more commonly, the following of specific instruction or even just ingrained habit or ‘dogma’).
*********************************
Rule 9.9 prohibits the intentional raising of the ball with a hit but contains Guidance on the raising of the ball towards an opponent, who is within 5m, with a flick or a scoop. That Guidance would be more appropriately placed in Rule 9.8. (as above)
Rule 9.9 Players must not intentionally raise the ball from a hit except for a shot at goal.
A raised hit must be judged explicitly on whether or not it is raised intentionally. It is not an offence to raise the ball unintentionally from a hit, including a free hit, anywhere on the field unless it is dangerous.
Players are permitted to raise the ball with a flick or scoop provided it is not dangerous. A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous. (Note there is no lower or minimum height given for “dangerous” to be considered)
A defender who is clearly running into the shot or into the taker without attempting to play the ball with their stick must be penalised for dangerous play.
The above clause (which, for an unknown reason, is the only one given twice in the Rules of Hockey) clearly doesn’t belong in Guidance to a Rule about a dangerously played ball ( a ball propelled in a dangerous way) or a Rule about the intentional raising of the ball with a hit. It would be more appropriately be placed in Rule 9.11. the ball/body contact Rule. Self-endangerment could in any case be described as irresponsible or reckless play, rather than dangerous play, to distinguish it from play that endangered another player, particularly with the ball. If a defender’s action does endanger both parties then it is both reckless (and/or irresponsible) and dangerous.
Clearly the raising of the ball with a hit referred to in Rule 9.9 cannot be considered to be dangerous play every time it occurs even if it is done intentionally and this has given rise to an ‘in practice’ contradiction of the Rule Guidance, which is expressed succinctly in the Umpire Manger’s Briefing for FIH Tournaments as “forget-lifted – think danger“. In another passage the UMB states “a ball raised to half-shin-pad height is not dangerous” (which is generally true only if the player hit is standing at the time). Again ‘in practice’ a raised hit, outside the circle or across the circle, intentional or not, is not penalised unless it is hit at above knee height towards a player positioned within 5m of the striker or is hit at a player’s upper body and causes evasive action or hits the player (and sometime not even then).
Legal intentional raising of the ball with a hit, that is when the raised hit is an on target shot at the goal, has developed a mythology of its own. In fact at the 2008 Olympics a verbal UMB seems to have issued to the match umpires (and television commentators),
which declared that no ‘on target’ shot at the goal, be it raised hit or flick, could be considered dangerous play. The same advice was given to the umpires and television commentators at the 2010 World Cups Such instruction makes a nonsense of course of (the already regularly ignored) ‘legitimate evasive action’ as a definition of a dangerously played ball.
The real issue with the raised hit is the raising of the ball into the circle from outside the circle and the raising of the ball across rather than at the goal in the circle. The latter is not a big problem at the moment, it happens too often to be accidental, such hits are commonly raised to just below knee height, but are generally dealt with by umpires reasonable well when it is obvious they are dangerous. It may however become more of an issue with the event of the ‘Own Goal’ and the possibility of more ‘hit and hope’. ‘Accidentally’ raised hits across the face of the goal – if they are not raised to above knee height they are not going to be penalised if current ‘practice’ is any guide – that will not be good enough for a supposed emphasis on safety and certainly unfair.
The present Rule is inadequate to deal with the illegally intentionally raised hit because of the effect of the advice given in UMB’s and because it is very difficult to be sure that a players has raised the ball intentionally- without certainty there can be no penalty, although there appears to be no difficulty in being certain that what looked like an accidental or forced ball/body contact was ‘in fact’ intentional or made voluntarily .
The easiest way to deal with intentional raising of hits into the circle is to prohibit any raising of the ball directly into the circle with a hit (with a small leeway for surface imperfection and ball skipping e.g. ball height off the surface). At the same time the ban on the propelling of any ball directly into the circle from a free awarded in the opponent’s 23m area should be withdrawn (which would in turn free the Self-Pass from then unnecessary restrictions imposed because of the ban on playing a free directly into the circle – but that is in a previous article).It is sufficient for safety of the direct pass into the circle that the ball be taken back outside the hash circle .
We don’t need ‘belt and braces’ on the free within the 23m area, when there is no corresponding restriction on playing the ball into the circle in open play – except that it should not be intentionally raised – especially when such raising of the ball is so often ignored.
********************************
9.10 Players must not approach within 5 metres of an opponent receiving a falling raised ball until it has been received, controlled and is on the ground.
The initial receiver has a right to the ball. If it is not clear which player is the initial receiver, the player of the team which raised the ball must allow the opponent to receive it.
This Rule which prohibits approaching a player receiving a ‘falling raised ball’ neglects to mention dangerous playing of the ball at all or even describe what is meant by a ‘falling raised ball’ – all balls which are raised in any degree will fall to ground.
‘In practice’ a ball which has been raised high enough to be considered ‘falling’ in a way that may lead to dangerous play, is typically one that has been raised (considerably) above head height at the apex of its flight, and generally, it will have been propelled between 15m and 70m in a horizontal direction, but could just go straight up and down again, without significant horizontal travel, as rebounds or deflections sometimes do. The stroke most commonly used to raise the ball over long distances at heights above head height is referred to as a scoop stroke and the ball itself as an ‘aerial ball’ ( a term that has never been used in any rulebook).
There are two ways in which a player ‘throwing’ an aerial ball may endanger opponents. The first to to play the aerial ball in such a way as it is raised that an opponent is obliged to take evasive action (this could better be put ‘forced to self-defence’) – the endangered player would normally have to be within 5m and not attempting to play the ball intentionally with the body (which means he or she should be attempting to play the ball with the stick) to be considered endangered. Exceptions might be when the player hit, was a player from the same team as the player propelling the ball, who was not watching the ball as it was raised or an opposition player who was unsighted as the ball was raised, perhaps by another player moving in front of him.
Endangerment from the drag-flick shot at the goal, which is a specialized development of the scoop used as a shot at a penalty corner, is frequently the result of either accidental (own side) or deliberate (opposition) sight blocking – sometimes its a combination of the two, when the flicker deliberately uses the body of an out-runner as a means to shield sight of the ball and the path of the shot from the players positioned behind the out-runner- often endangering both the out-runner and (if the out-runner evades the ball) the player positioned behind him. That is how Geoff Irwin of Cookstown, who was positioned on the goal-line, had his skull fractured in a EHL game last season: he didn’t see the ball before it hit him.
The second way the scoop may endanger is if it is ‘thrown’ so that it will land in an area where opposing players are already positioned within 5m of each other, most commonly when the contesting players are side on to each other and the ball is falling between them rather than well wide to one side of them (which is unlikely to be dangerous in itself or to lead to dangerous play). In such situations the scooper has created a potentially dangerous situation – that is play that leads to dangerous play – (I preferred the previous wording “play likely to lead to dangerous play” because the danger need not actually occur for the scoop to be penalised, the umpire intervening at the right moment to prevent dangerous play developing ). Where the ball is falling into a contested area the umpire can wait to allow the players of the same team as the scooper to retreat and give room to the the opposition receiver (in which case there is no need to penalise the aerial), but must intervene and penalise the player who lifted the ball, if the same team player fail to give the required 5m space. In these circumstances there has been no encroachment offence (or if there is further encroachment it is irrelevant) as the opposing players were already too close when the ball was raised, so the lifter of the ball has played it dangerously, if there is retreat by the same team players in the area in which the ball is falling there is no need to stop the game to penalise the lifter’s offence – timing of the whistle is critical to safe outcome and game flow – but better too soon than too late.
An encroachment offence following an aerial pass occurs when the aerial is played into clear space or to an individual receiver in space and then after the ball is in the air but before the ball has been controlled to ground opponent/s close to challenge for the ball.
With the introduction of the Direct-Lift from a Free-ball, especially as it coincides with the introduction of the Own Goal, the use of an aerial from outside the 23m area directly into the circle may (probably will) lead to some dangerous situations. The suggestion that the Direct-Lift be not permitted directly into the circle has been ignored (which is strange when no propelling of the ball into the circle is allowed at all from a Free awarded within the 23m area). The scoop into the circle in open play will not be anything like the same as the scoop used in a set-piece – just as the result of a drag-flick at a penalty corner is not much like the use of a scoop in open play.
Because the specialist scoop shot called the drag-flick is a shot at the goal the endangerment of players moving to close down on the shot and attempting to block/intercept it with their sticks seems to be completely overlooked (for reasons which are entirely unclear, it is the defenders rather than the flicker who are the more likely to be penalised if a defender is hit with the ball – even at well above knee height- in such circumstances) and nor, irrationally, do defenders defending rising shots made to above head height get the same clear space protection as those fielding a falling ball, especially in the outfield – senior umpires have even declared (Dunn) that the space requirement for a falling ball does not apply when a lob or scoop shot is made at the goal because “aerial Rules do not apply to shots at goal” (which is contradicted by Gawley).
***************************************
Rule 9.11 Field players must not stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their body.
It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player. The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball or if they position themselves with the intention of stoppingthe ball in this way.
(From Rule 9.9) A defender who is clearly running into the shot or into the taker without attempting to play the ball with their stick must be penalised for dangerous play. (irresponsible or reckless play – “Players are expected to act responsibly at all times.”
It is not an offence if the ball hits the hand holding the stick but would otherwise have hit the stick.
Rule 9.11. has been included in this article about the dangerous propelling of the ball because guidance from another Rule on the propelling of the ball contained a Guidance clause which properly belongs in this Rule. In passing it is worth mentioning again that the restoration of the word ‘intentionally’ to Rule 9.11, so that it reads : Field players must not intentionally stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their body. would do away with the need for :- It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player. The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball…
The following clause which is tacked onto that :- ….or if they position themselves with the intention of stoppingthe ball in this way. is a complete mystery. I have no idea what it means and have never met anyone who could satisfactorily explain it.
Is it the positioning that is the offence? If so, why does an umpire permit such positioning, at a penalty corner for example? Is it the prior intention of stopping the ball with hand, foot or body that is the offence? If so, how is such intention determined if the defender is 10m – 15m from the shooter and has no certainty about the direction and height at which the ball will be propelled? The only sensible explanation I can come up with is that this clause was intended to prevent/penalise breaking down of play with the body from short range i.e. from within playing distance of the ball: actions such as falling across the path of a ball holder, effectively ‘tackling’ with the body – which is obviously potentially dangerous to opponents and irresponsibly reckless.
In passing it is necessary to point out yet again that there is no ‘gains benefit’ clause to give exception to the first clause of the present guidance, so if a player unintentionally or unavoidably makes a foot/ball contact that prevents the ball going into the goal there is still no offence: that situation needs to be addressed. Provided there has been no prior dangerous play or forcing of contact by attackers, a penalty stroke is just in such circumstances. I am, however, very much opposed to a reintroduction of the ‘catch all’ gains benefit, where any contact made was (and still is) seen as of benefit and penalised accordingly, that just made a nonsense of the Rule: the sort of nonsense that is still being made of : -The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball
Procedure for Penalty Corner
k. if the first shot at goal is a hit (as opposed to a push, flick or scoop), the ball must cross the goal-line, or be on a path which would have resulted in it crossing the goal-line, at a height of not more than 460 mm (the height of the backboard) before any deflection, for a goal to be scored.
The requirements of this Rule apply even if the ball touches the stick or body of a defender before the first shot at goal. If the first shot at goal is a hit and the ball is, or will be, too high crossing the goal-line it must be penalised even if the ball is subsequently deflected off the stick or body of another player.
The ball may be higher than 460 mm during its flight before it crosses the goal-line provided there is no danger and provided it would drop of its own accord below 460 mm before crossing the line.
l. for second and subsequent hits at the goal and for flicks, deflections and scoops, it is permitted to raise the ball to any height but this must not be dangerous.
if a defender is within five metres of the first shot at goal during the taking of a penalty corner and is struck by the ball below the knee, another penalty corner must be awarded or is struck on or above the knee in a normal stance, the shot is judged to be dangerous and a free hit must be awarded to the defending team.
The height restriction on a first hit shot at a penalty corner is there for reasons of player safety, but even so the FIH HRB (now the FIH Rules Committee) do not say straight out that a hit shot raised to pass over the goal-line at above 460mm is dangerous play, but only that a goal cannot be scored with such a shot, and it should be penalised – but for what penalised if not dangerous play? Non-compliance with objective criteria for the scoring of a goal? That is not an offence any more than hitting the ball at the goal from outside the circle is.
The ‘holy cow’ is the shot at the goal, some get apoplectic at the suggestion that any shot at the goal be considered dangerous to defenders “Who have put themselves in the way” etc. etc. (as if defending the goal by positioning in front of it, the only place from which it can be defended, was an illicit action). The term ‘legitimate evasive action’ would never have been coined if evasive action could not be legitimate (which means the defender was legitimately positioned in the first instance) and if such evasion did not describe a dangerously played ball. Where there is no defender to be endangered there can be no dangerously played ball. The very existence of the term ‘dangerously played ball’ means it is possible to endanger a player by propelling the ball (at them). There is no exclusion of the goal from ‘dangerously played ball’. It wouldn’t make much sense if there were, probably in excess of 90% of the balls that are played in a way that could be described as dangerous to others, are shots at the goal. Far fewer shots at goal are penalised than should be. Why? Firstly, because it is legal to raise the ball to any height with a hit at the goal and there is an (encouraged) perception that defenders cause danger to themselves by their defensive positioning, and that shooters are not responsible for the consequences of high shots made towards defenders positioned between them and the goal. Naturally these notions are not to be found anywhere in writing in any FIH issued document, but ‘in practice’ that is how it plays out.
The principal reason things are viewed that way is because “a dangerously played ball” is (in theory) an almost entirely subjectively determined judgement made by an umpire. In fact, in order to achieve consistency between umpires particularly at FIH Tournament level, umpires follow briefing instructions and do not make case by case judgements about such matters as ball/body contact by defenders in the circle – defenders are routinely ‘automatically’ penalised for any such contact. One has only to listen to the question and answer about a foot contact by a defender in the circle during a video referral to remove all doubt on this point – there is never a question about the intent of the player making contact with the ball, just “Was there any contact?”. In a short time players come to expect this automatic penalising of any ball/body contact, even to demand it and to play to obtain (force) such contacts by opponents in the circle. This became so much the practice that having a Rule that stated that forcing ball/foot contact was an offence became an embarrassment and a way was found to delete it (while pretending only to transfer such forcing to “other Rules”). Technically even the forcing of self-defence ceased to exist as an offence and was, presumably, transferred to the dangerous play Rule. Not a ‘big deal’ it might be said, except that the forcing of self-defence is a far better description of the dangerous played ball than ‘legitimate evasive action’ and not long ago was central to thinking about safety and the control of the raised ball. (see John Gawley’s The Lifted Ball Umpire Coaching document).
That coaching document, first written in 2001, is laughed at now (except the bits that have been ‘cherry picked’ for compliance with current ‘thinking’) not because of the conflict in its content (it is very conflicted) but because it has not been revised since 2005, but a dangerously played ball has been defined as one that “causes legitimate evasive action by players” at least as far back as the earliest rulebook I possess, which is for the year 1976.
Revision of the definition of ‘a dangerously played ball’ is long overdue, but the FIH Rules Committee have not yet got around to noticing the existence of the drag-flick as a shooting stroke at a penalty corner and seem at present more concerned with changing the descriptions of the way the pitch marking are measured – not the actual measurements just the descriptions of those measurements – and other similar vital concerns.
Most of the following suggestion was first made about twelve years ago, but as no-one else has offered an alternative, I repeat it and add to it, for completeness, clauses to cover the aerial ball.
A dangerously played ball ( meets the objective criteria below and) is a ball propelled in such a way that it forces a player to self-defence or hits that player despite an attempt to evade the ball or to play at it with the stick. .
A player who is hit may have been unable to take defensive action either because of the distance from which the ball was propelled and/or velocity of the ball or because the player was impeded or was unaware that he or she was endangered, being unsighted or unable to track the ball at the critical moments.
Objective criteria:- The ball
a) is propelled at a player, (A ball passing the side of the head within the shoulder width of the player will be considered ‘at’). and
b) is traveling at above the elbow height of the player (The player standing in a normal upright playing stance) and
c) has been propelled at a velocity that forces self defence to avoid injury.
A subjective judgement because actual speed cannot reliably be determined by eye but an objective one also because the velocity of a ball raised with a flick is comparable with the (seen and remembered) velocity of a ball that was raised with a hit. The velocity at which injury is probable when the ball is at the head or throat of a player is modest. That a ball will, if not defended or evaded, hit a player in either area at all is sufficient evidence of endangerment. Players are unlikely to be incapacitated by hits to the chest area from a ball traveling at less than 50kph, but it is not the intention that umpires should be looking for reasons not to penalise the playing of the ball at an other player at above elbow height – but the opposite – a ball at that height that forces self-defence should be penalised unless there is good reason not to penalise. A ball that is losing velocity and falling as it reaches the defender may often be considered safe enough to be coped with, but if it is rising and/or has sufficient momentum to carry it around 10m beyond the defending player it should be considered dangerous to that player.
d) has been propelled from less than 20m of the endangered player.
The possibility of a drag-flick into the circle in open play becomes a realistic tactical possibility with the introduction of the Own Goal, so this distance – which was initially 15m – is increased to 20m to cope with that possibility.
e) Any ball propelled at a player within 3m at above knee height will be considered dangerous play, irrespective of ball velocity.
Circumstances and therefore criteria change when a player is not standing and facing the ball in a normal playing stance e.g when a player has fallen or has been tripped, umpire judgement of endangerment is required when a player is on the ground.
Aerial ball:
A ball may also be considered to be played dangerously if it is raised to above head height with a scoop or scoop-like stroke and has been directed so as to land between players within 5m of each other who are likely to compete for possession of it before it hits the ground.
Even when players are positioned close to each other a ball directed to land well to one side, especially on the flanks and towards the sideline outside the players, will generally not be considered dangerously played.
Where the ball is lofted over a defender to an attacker who is 2m or more the defender’s goal side of the defender the ball will be considered to have been played into clear space and therefore not dangerously.
An aerial ball may be stopped and taken to ground by defenders in their own circle and by any player in all other parts of the field – excepting attackers in the opponent’s circle – always provided that there is no opponent within 5m of the player playing the ball in this way.
Hitting or deflecting away of a ball at any height above shoulder height is prohibited as dangerous play.
General open play.
Raising the ball into the circle with a hit is prohibited.
(The current ban on playing a free-ball awarded in the opponents 23m area, directly into the circle should be withdrawn)
Raising the ball directly into the circle with a Direct Lift is prohibited
Bouncing the ball into the circle with a Direct lift will need to be judged on its apparent dangers but should be discouraged.
(presently permitted)
Penalty Corner.
If the first shot at goal is a hit it is limited to 460mm as it crosses the goal-line. Any first hit shot which will obviously not cross the goal-line below this height to be penalised as dangerous immediate that is apparent
If the first shot at goal is a flick it is not height limited but the dangerously played ball criteria must be strictly applied. In particular the ball must not be propelled at any player at above elbow height.
Goal to be marked at 120cms with a 50mm tape from goal post to goal post around the back of the goal
The automatic penalising of a player with another penalty corner after being hit below the knee with a shot at goal during a penalty corner should be withdrawn, it is unjustified, unfair and encourages intimidation by means of hard raised hits into the legs of defenders. The possibility now also exists that such a hit could be made first time from outside the circle into the legs of defenders and result in a deflected ‘own goal’ – this tactical possibility increases the potential for the dangerous playing of a hit and of the hit that results directly in danger from high deflections.
Summary
Apart form the aerial pass, a dangerously played ball is a ball that has been propelled at a player at above elbow height (120cm for senior men) from within 20m. at a velocity that will force self defence to avoid injury.
The order in which most of criteria are presented does not matter, the critical one however, and therefore the first, is at a player. It does not matter how high the ball is propelled or at what velocity or from which distance – if it is not at a player it cannot force either evasion or any other sort of self defence and therefore will not be dangerous.
For the aerial ball from the Direct Lift in particular, it is the proximity of opposing players to the chosen landing point and what the same team players do (or do not do) which will determine whether or not the lofted pass will be considered dangerous at point of lift. In open play the scoop can be dangerous to opponents in exactly the same way as the lifted ball described above and may also be dangerous play if lofted to land among opposing player who were within 5m at the time the ball was raised – and the same team players fail to retreat 5m from the landing point.
Now that the Direct Lift has become a Mandatory Experiment in field hockey this article has additional relevance.
“We simply can’t hold up the evolution of the game because of our outdated and stubborn understandings of what may possibly become dangerous.”
The above statement is a quote from a umpire who posted on an Internet hockey forum during a discussion about umpire positioning and shared responsibilities between umpires when a scoop stroke (aerial pass) was made, and also the position from which any free awarded for dangerous play should be taken. I agree that the game should be allowed evolve tactically but I do not agree that our understanding of potentially dangerous actions is outdated. I do think the current Rules and Rule Guidance are inadequate – but they (sic) always have been.
The wording of the Rule did not change greatly the last time it was amended in 2004 when the rulebook was reformatted; since that date it had been:-
9.10 Players must not approach within 5 metres of an opponent receiving a falling raised ball until it has been received, controlled and is on the ground.
The initial receiver has a right to the ball. If it is not clear which player is the initial receiver, the player of the team which raised the ball must allow the opponent to receive it.
There is no mention of danger in either the Rule or the Rule Guidance; to find that it is necessary to go back to a time when there was a separate section called Interpretation in the back of the rulebook – and even then the nature of the danger is not identified. At that time all actions concerning the lifting of the ball were dealt with under one Rule which had a number of clauses. The relevant ones were:-
13.1.3 Raised ball
A player shall not:
c. approach within 5 metres of a player receiving a falling raised ball until it has been played and is on the ground
d. raise the ball at another player.
. The relevant clause (c) is identical to the current Rule. The (much reduced) Rule Guidance is taken from the previous Interpretation – which is here considerably shortened for brevity – leaving out raising the ball 1) over a prone opponent, 2) off a goalkeeper’s pads, 3) into the circle, 4) the flick shot at penalty corner etc.
Interpretation scoop The ball raised over a distance using a flick or scoop action must be judged for actual or potential danger: - where the ball is played - during flight - where the ball lands. The offence should be penalised where the danger occurs, not necessarily where the ball was originally played: - when the danger occurs where the ball was played, the penalty must be taken there; - when the danger occurs during the flight of the ball, the penalty should be taken from where the ball was originally played; - when a player of either team behaves in a dangerous manner in the area of the flight of the ball, the penalty must be applied where the player is positioned; - when the danger occurs where the ball lands, the penalty must be taken there.
Any flick or scoop made with an oncoming opponent within 5 metres is almost certainly dangerous and should be penalised.
The raised ball which is played into open space or to alone player should not be penalised unless dangerous.
Receiving player A player receiving a raised ball must be given the opportunity to play it safely. If a player flicks or scoops the ball safely into free space and another player of the same team and an opponent reach the area where the ball will land at the same time, then the player of the team which played the ball shall give the opponent time and space to bring the ball under control.
Defenders do not have a right to the ball if an attacker is the initial receiver.
If the receiving player is clear of other players at the time the ball is raised, no players of the opposing team should approach within 5 metres until the ball has been received, controlled and is on the ground.
**************************
The last clause above, which I will come back to, and these three cause some difficulty:-
- when the danger occurs during the flight of the ball, the penalty should be taken from where the ball was originally played;
There appears to be conflict between that statement and these two:-
- when a player of either team behaves in a dangerous manner in the area of the flight of the ball, the penalty must be applied where the player is positioned;
- when the danger occurs where the ball lands, the penalty must be taken there.
but it may be resolved by considering danger caused by the player who raised the ball and then danger caused by other players.
Any player other than the player who raised the ball who attempted to play at a ball above shoulder height would have been guilty of an offence so it is only necessary (in the absence of dangerous play by others) to consider what would have been dangerous play by the player who raised the ball. We are given one instance – raising the ball at a player was against the Rules and certainly dangerous play if the other player was within 5m. ‘Considered dangerous’ is still the case if the ball is raised at a player within 5m (see Guidance to Rule 9.9) – so that understanding is not ‘outdated’.
The other potential cause of dangerous play (we can deduce from the text If the receiving player is clear of other players at the time the ball is raised) was to raise the ball into an area where opposing players were already within 5m of each other and likely to contest for the ball, which brings us back to this:-
If the receiving player is clear of other players at the time the ball is raised, no players of the opposing team should approach within 5 metres until the ball has been received, controlled and is on the ground.
Umpires reasoned (were told) that if a player scooped the ball to land among player who were already closer than 5m at the time the ball was raised the player who raised the ball was playing the ball in a way that was likely to lead to dangerous play – so they penalised when the ball was still in flight and took the ball back to the place from which it was raised, which concurs with this:-
- when the danger occurs during the flight of the ball, the penalty should be taken from where the ball was originally played;
There are however some problems with this approach. If the ball is scooped towards players who may contest for it and the players from the same team as the scooper move away from the opposing receiving player and allow her/him to receive the ball without interference, there is no danger, no disadvantage (other than a loss of ‘ground’) and so no reason to interrupt the game to penalise. It is therefore incorrect to penalise the offence (play leading to dangerous play) immediately the ball is scooped up so that it may land among contesting players – which is what was common umpiring practice some years ago complying with the previous “at the time the ball was raised“. and “likely to lead to dangerous play“
The umpire needs to wait to see if the players close to the opposing receiver (when the fact is identified) respond by allowing that receiver sufficient time and space. (This is a personal interpretation because the Rule only forbids approach and does not demand retreat if opposing players are already within 5m – something the FIH Rules Committee could take a look at).
There may however come a point in time, in the flight of the falling ball, when it will be clear that the receiver has not been given sufficient space and there is no longer time for opponents to move away. This time must be when the ball is still beyond the stick playing distance of players in the landing zone, because to leave a decision any longer could be to allow a potentially dangerous situation to become actually dangerous, and it is no good to expect or hope that players will ‘be sensible’ (they have not after all had the sense to move away earlier while the ball was in flight) and not swing at the ball while it is still in the air. The whistle needs to be blown early enough so that players have time to hear it and respond to it before they attempt to play at the falling ball – so probably when the ball is still at least 5m off the ground. The umpire is then still ‘blowing’ according to this in the previous version of the Rule:-
- when the danger occurs during the flight of the ball, the penalty should be taken from where the ball was originally played;
but could also applying this -
- when a player of either team behaves in a dangerous manner in the area of the flight of the ball, the penalty must be applied where the player is positioned;.
that position could be where the ball is landing (rather than where it landed) - when the danger occurs where the ball lands, the penalty must be taken there.(which would be too late to avert dangerous play if there were contesting players beneath a falling ball) It not difficult to see why all these clauses were removed completely, but amendment would probably have been the better option.
Not penalising immediately the ball is raised but only when the potential danger (compounded by failure to retreat) becomes highly likely or inevitable, is a matter of timing. This whole issue is about the timing of the blowing of the whistle as potential danger is seen as the ball is coming down. The umpire should allow players in the landing zone time to comply to the 5m requirement but should not delay too much and allow potential danger to become actual danger.
The incident in the clip below followed an accidental deflection of a hit up off the stick of a defending player – not a intentional scoop into the circle – but it gives an idea of the kind of problems which may (almost inevitably will) arise from the Direct Lift of a free into the circle. Not intervening in good time, changed what could have been a bully or perhaps the award of a free to the attack outside the 23m area into what should have been a penalty stroke for the GB team. (The decision in the match, after a video referral, requested by the Pakistan team, was a free to Pakistan because the England player – clearly the initial receiver – hit the ball at above his shoulder height. The encroaching offence by the defender was overlooked).
An appreciation of the dangers of having players competing for the ball falling onto them from above head height is not an ‘outdated and stubborn understanding of what may possibly become dangerous‘, what has become outdated, and has never been clearly explained, is the need for correct timing of intervention and application of penalty.
The first approach outlined above – when the danger occurs during the flight of the ball, the penalty should be taken from where the ball was originally played; does not satisfy the present common approach, in which danger, once the ball has been raised safely and is in flight, is penalised with a free at the place it occurred, generally where the ball is landing, rather than where it was initially caused (by lifting the ball into a contested area) but I think the present approach to be flawed.
The flaw I see in the current approach is that there is nothing to deter players from scooping the ball into crowded areas and creating potentially dangerous situations, which they then rely on others to rectify- the lifter of the ball has in this case no responsibility for his choice of target (landing) area . Coupled with this is the very lax attitude that has developed to the distance required and to the time allowed to receivers to control the ball to ground (both Rule requirements which could be looked at afresh to ‘evolve’ the game – develop it tactically). The combination of these factors gives a decided advantage, I think an unfair advantage, to teams who use this tactic to gain ground and ‘overload’ the ball at the site of the awarded free – encroaching to within 5m of receiver while the ball is still in the air is a deliberate tactic and the award of a free is not a deterrent , not in fact a penalty, it is the minimum aim of such tactics. (Greater advantage can be gained if the defending receiver ‘fluffs’ the attempt to control the ball to ground, especially if he deflects it into the path of a closing or wide opponent).
There are several possible receiving/contesting scenarios when a ball is scooped over a long distance, in the majority of them, if there is a dangerous play offence, the free should be taken at or close to where the ball was landing, but where the ball is flighted to land in an already contested area, then the action of the player who raises the ball is the initial cause of potential danger, “play leading to dangerous play” (or the preferable “play likely to lead to dangerous play”) ; players on the lifter’s team who close on the receiver or do not give space are a secondary or compounding factor (and commit a second offence). I believe that in these circumstances a free ought to be awarded where the ball was raised, the first offence being penalised first. Nothing in the Rules of Hockey contradicts this view but nothing now supports it (as previously was the case): “simplification and clarification” have led to a lack of clear guidance.
***********************************
A different issue.
This:- when a player of either team behaves in a dangerous manner in the area of the flight of the ball, the penalty must be applied where the player is positioned;
It is understandable that a player who is positioned in clear space, more than 5m from opponents or opponent’s goal side of opponents and on the run towards the goal, is upset to be penalised for playing at the ball above shoulder height in order to control it into possession. It’s an offence, but why? The disadvantage to opponents is clear, but there is no element of danger in such action and the game would be improved by allowing such play. For safety a line has to be drawn at close players contesting for the ball while it is in the air above shoulder height, but unnecessary restrictions should be removed.
Two areas to sort out: the timing of the whistle when a ball is falling into a contested area and the unnecessary penalising of players who take the ball down safely from above shoulder height in clear space – the latter could be said to penalised unnecessarily at present because of “a stubborn and outdated understanding of what may possibly become dangerous” but that is not syntax I would use.
I always included the suggestion when advocating the Direct Lift that the opponent’s circle should be excluded as a target area because of the possibility of attempts by attackers to volley the ball towards the goal. The addition of the facility to lift the ball directly from a free awarded outside the opposing 23m area to land in the circle, which is now part of a Mandatory Experiment, will I believe lead to ‘interesting’ ramifications. We shall no doubt shortly see.
This is a clip from an EHL game, where controlling the ball to ground from above shoulder height is being experimented with. The umpire awarded a goal from this shot but I think that this type of play should not be acceptable in any level of the game.
Here again (below) there is a timing issue. A goal cannot be awarded because the German player played the ball from above his shoulder height – but prior to that he was illegally encroached upon by two, possibly three, Australian players, before the ball was controlled to ground. The umpire should have been considering the award of a penalty stroke for the encroaching of the goalkeeper or a penalty corner for the encroaching of the Australian player closing from behind (who was within 5m of the receiving player before the ball was in the circle). The umpire was possibly trying to play advantage but in a strongly contested situation, where the alternative was a probable penalty stroke and danger was likely (in the ‘still’ below the German player has yet to play the ball), that was probably the wrong thing to do.
Field Hockey. There are two amendments to the Rules of Hockey announced as Mandatory Experiments for the seasons 2013-15.
The ‘Own Goal’ which decrees that it is no longer necessary for the last touch of the ball to be from an attacker’s stick in the circle for a goal to be scored; a contact off a defender’s stick or body, if made within the circle, can result in the award of a goal if that touch deflects the ball into the goal. The exception being in cases where there is a prior offence by the attacking team, for example, a dangerously played ball into the circle.
The change appears to have been made to make umpiring easier where it is clear that contact with the ball was made in the circle but it is not clear if the ball was deflected or propelled by the stick of an attacker or deflected off the body or stick of a defender.
The umpire still has to position to be able to see when the ball is deflected off the body of an attacker into the goal or alternatively if there was any touch of the ball at all within the circle.
The other change, the Direct-Lift is a reintroduction. It is an amended version of the Free Hit procedure that was deleted shortly after the Women’s Hockey Association was amalgamated with the Men’s Hockey Association.
14. FREE HIT. For Women Only. a) A free hit shall be taken from the spot on which the breach occurred, except for an offence by an attacker within the circle, in which case the free hit shall be taken from any spot within the circle. 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. (my bold)
Women players were at one time permitted to raise the ball directly from a free-ball with any stroke including a hit – men were not allowed to intentionally raise a free-ball at all.
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. (How refreshingly clear that is compared with : shall not intentionally raise the ball with a hit – coupled with “forget lifted – think danger” from UMB).
The Direct-Lift allows a player to raise the ball directly from a free with a flick or scoop (restoring part of the Rule from the Women’s version) but still prohibits the intentional raising of a free ball with a hit. (and as a result the Free Hit needs to be renamed - http://wp.me/pKOEk-ZC )
The Women’s Rule forbade raising of the ball into the circle above knee height with a hit. When I suggested the Direct-Lift, (which was before I discovered the old Rule) I proposed that a flick or scoop of a free ball directly into the circle be prohibited. That proposal has not been accepted.
I am not happy with the Own-Goal combined with the very lax approach to penalising the hit lifted into the circle, the Own Goal is not a ‘big deal’ on it’s own, but when combined with the raising of the ball into the circle with a hit it will probably become both an unfair and a dangerous addition.
This old Rule:- The ball shall be stationary and the striker shall hit the ball or PUSH IT ALONG THE GROUND could be adopted with a slight alteration and with the recent additions. The ball shall be stationary and the striker shall hit it ALONG THE GROUND or make a push pass or make a Self-Pass or a pass with a flick or scoop (Direct-Lift). Obviously “along the ground” will require sympathetic umpiring where the intention to hit the ball along the ground is clear but there is slight skipping off the surface of the pitch (no more than ball height).
Allowing a ball to be scooped into the circle from a free ball awarded beyond the 23m line makes even more of a nonsense of the prohibition of the hitting of a free ball into the circle from within the 23m area. The facility to scoop the ball into the circle from a ‘set-piece’ is not at all the same as the permit to do so in open play, and it will probably open up a new ‘can of worms’ for umpires as coaches experiment with planned moves.
The previous old prohibition in the Women’s Rules on lifted a hit into the circle above knee height could (and I think should) be adapted, to prohibit the deflection of a ball into the circle off the stick of an attacker at above knee height – or to above knee height within the circle.
I am not in favour of a complete ban on raising the ball into the circle, that has been tried at least twice previously and ‘foundered’ on pedantic umpiring, where even the permitted raising of the ball over a flat stick or the body of a goalkeeper on the ground was often -incorrectly – penalised, but in this and some other Rules areas the ‘powers that be’ seem to take one step forward and two backwards – and not necessarily in that order – so they are not really looking where they are going.
**********************
I wrote the article above in August 2012; since then the Rule has been in use and a question arose about a defender playing the ball above the shoulder. http://wp.me/pKOEk-Vk
It appears that my assumption that the ball had to be played into the circle by an attacker (comments below) was not correct – with people writing things such as “Why shouldn’t it be a goal, it is in football?” (soccer). Well, it shouldn’t be, in my opinion, because the FIH have committed themselves to retaining the traditional characteristics of field hockey. One of those characteristics was a shooting circle which had to be penetrated (with skillful play) before a shot that could be scored from could be taken at the goal.
(And, in any case, why on earth should what is done in football influence what is done in hockey? Consider what hockey has that soccer does not, temporary suspensions, rolling substitutions, no off-side Rule . Why isn’t football more like hockey?)
The only two Conduct of Play Rules that are now rigorously enforced are 1) eleven players from each team being on the pitch at any one time and 2) on the rare occasion it is seen when it occurs, ’backsticks’.
If I was asked to choose which to ‘lose’ from the game from :- dangerously played ball, dangerous use of stick, forcing, ball shielding (obstruction), barging, impeding or ‘backsticks’, ‘backsticks’ would be the one I would go for (thus greatly expanding the range of stickwork skills possible and facilitating the left handed or left-side player, who still called cack-handed in hockey). Yet all the others listed have almost vanished or are haphazardly applied, but not ‘backsticks’ – “Traditional you see“. That edge-hitting has made the ‘backsticks’ Rule obsolete and redundant does not seem to be noticed. But I have been chuntering on about the absurdity of the ‘backsticks’ Rule since before edge-hitting was introduced almost twenty years ago.
The ball/body contact Rule could do with re-jigging too, such contacts (with exception only for the prevention of a certain goal from a legal shot) should not be penalised unless clearly deliberate. The ‘fussiness’ of “It touched a foot so it must be a penalty corner” is absurd – and incredible from someone who has deliberately forced the foot contact and who will then expect to be allowed to propel the ball, during the subsequent penalty corner, with a drag-flick, at a defender’s head with complete impunity – and almost certainly be awarded a penalty stroke if the ball hits the defender. If the own goal has been introduced so that spectators used to soccer’s Laws can comprehend what is going on during a hockey match, it has to be said that there are more obvious places to make rational changes, so that hockey spectators who have played and watched hockey for years and have read the current Rules of Hockey, can also have some idea about what is happening and why.
Field Hockey. An FIH Umpire recently declared “There is no gap between Rule application and the FIH Rules of Hockey“. Having seen many of the televised matches of the hockey tournament at the London Games and observed that:-
No ‘on target’ shot at goal will be considered dangerous play, even if the ball hits and injures a defender.
Wild and dangerous use of the stick is generally ignored.
All ball/body contacts are penalised as if they are intentional playing of the ball, unless opponents can play-on with advantage (in the circle that means score a goal). All video referrals in this area asked a question about “contact with the ball” never “Did the defender play the ball?” and intention was never mentioned.
Ball shielding to prevent an opponent, who intends to play the ball and is within playing distance of the ball, from playing the ball, is no longer an offence.
Moving bodily into an opponent while in possession of the ball is no longer an offence.
Bodily blocking out-runners at a penalty corner is no longer considered third-part obstruction or barging.
Intentional raising of the ball with a hit is not now considered an offence in any part of the field.
The hard forehand edge hit is no longer an offence.
It is no longer necessary to even attempt to make the ball stationary before a free is taken.
Same team members are permitted to be within 5m of a free taken in the opposing 23m area, even if they do directly influence play.
(The Rules of Hockey for 2013-15, which have been recently published, not surprisingly, do not contain any of these changes).
I have to agree there is no gap. This situation could not be described as ‘a gap’. A better analogy would be “Ships that passed in the night some years ago and are now in different oceans – one, called the Rules of Hockey, is however sinking, apparently deliberately holed below the water-line, and it may soon be lost without trace. The other may be called Interpretation or Application, but as there appears to be no documents associated with this vessel, it is impossible to be certain what it is called. The information there is has come by word of mouth: it could be a pirate, it’s certainly unauthorized.
During the Olympic preliminary round field hockey match between Australia and South Africa on 30th July the commentator said this:-
That has of course been the case for at least the last fifty years and until January 2011 it was an offence to deliberately play the ball into an opponent with the intention of forcing a breach of Rule.
Ironically the offence of ‘forcing’ is no longer in existence, the FIH Rules Committee having decided it was not necessary because the various forced breaches could be dealt with under other Rules. But it is not clear, in the absence of dangerous play, what other Rule would be used to deal with a forced foot/ball contact.
What is still true is that a forced foot/ball contact is not an offence by the player hit because only such contacts as are made voluntarily are offences, and a forced contact, by definition, is not a voluntary contact. At present therefore a player in possession of the ball can force a foot/ball contact onto an opponent without penalty (provided the play is not dangerous) but the player hit has not committed an offence either and, other things being equal, play should continue.
Regrettably this is still not happening, forced as well as accidental foot/ball contacts are still being penalised and this commentator, among others, still talks about ‘finding a foot’ to ‘win’ a penalty.
The first goal in the game came after an interesting decision. Dywer flicked the ball at very close range up into the body of a defender positioned in the goal (and hurt him). The umpire awarded a penalty stoke. Until the deletion of the ‘gains benefit’ clause that might have been justifiable despite what was very obviously dangerous play (it fitted the criteria set out – above knee height and from within 5m – a shot at the goal is not exempt from the Dangerous Play Rule). There is now however only one reason to penalise a defender in the goal (or anywhere else) hit with the ball. A shot that was not dangerous but played into the body of a defender can result in penalty against the defender only if the defender voluntarily used the body to play the ball (i.e. from choice made no attempt to play the ball with the stick) and the umpire needs to be certain that the use of the body was not forced (unavoidable) or not accidental. The defender on this occasion had no opportunity at all to avoid the ball and so the dangerously raised ball was the first offence.
The accidental direct prevention of a goal with part of the body should be penalised as an unfair benefit gained (provided there has been no prior dangerous play) for fairness and also to discourage reckless defending, the gained benefit clause needs to be restored to deal with that circumstance, to allow fair decisions when a goal is directly prevented with an unavoidable or accidental ball/body contact. I am not in favour of the reintroduction of ‘gained benefit’ (or the substituted ’disadvantaged opponents’) in other circumstances – except perhaps a ball/body contact by a player who is already in possession of the ball – because it has previously been widely used as a ‘catch all’ which inverted the intent of the Rule.
I am perplexed that following the deletion of the ‘forcing’ of an breach of Rule by an opponent as an offence in itself, the transfer of the penalising of forcing offences in field hockey to “other Rules” (to quote from the Rules of Hockey) -, which are supposed to cover the same prohibited actions, such as playing the ball into an opponent’s foot, or making a ‘pass’ in such a way that it unavoidably strikes an opponent – these same actions should be now seen by some as a skill. Forcing actions, the forcing of obstruction or the forcing of self-defence (‘legitimate evasive action because of dangerous play) and the forcing of ball/body contact are still (at least according to the Rule Guidance) offences. They remain offences under intimidation and dangerous play Rules.
Hitting an opponent with the ball clearly demonstrates a lack of skill, unless it is done deliberately and deliberately playing the ball at or into an opponent, in any way whatsoever, is as much against the intent and ‘spirit of the Rules’ as any intentional ‘playing’ (stopping, intercepting, deflecting, propelling) of the ball with the body. That is a balance that ‘fair play’ demands. The only legitimate contact is between stick and ball (and of course between a player and the playing surface).
Deliberately propelling the ball at or into an opponent and hitting that opponent should not be rewarded with a penalty against the player hit – that encourages such ‘play’ – if the player propelling the ball in this way is not penalised, because there is doubt about his or her intention, then following the deletion of forcing as an offence (and provided the player hit has not been injured) play should continue. Current ‘practice’ seems to be the other way around, to penalise the player hit with the ball unless the player who propelled the ball, the opponent, can play on with advantage. This is completely backwards, and contrary to Rule, because unless a player who is hit with the ball allows the ball to hit the body voluntarily, (an odd replacement for ‘intentionally‘) he or she has committed no offence – an action forced on an opponent cannot be said to be made voluntarily.
If the ball is propelled at another player deliberately, and hits them, that may be an offence – will be if the stroke is made from within 5m of that player and the ball is raised at all – and that offence should be subject to penalty irrespective of the actions of the player hit or of any disadvantage the player propelling the ball may have caused to him or her self by this action. Being hit with the ball is not ‘playing the ball’, playing is an intentional action not an accidental or involuntary one. It is possible to misplay the ball where the intent is to play it, but that is a lapse in skill not a difference in intent.
We should have a balance of the same sort between the prohibition on ball shielding and the prohibition on any form of physical contact but, because ball-shielding is now almost ignored, we don’t. (The ignoring of ball shielding is itself ignored, it’s a subject that is simply not discussed any more). Added to that we are now and increasingly, seeing players in possession of the ball initiating physical contact by leading the ball with the body while moving into opponents who are trying to challenge for it – here again it is the forcing player who is offending, the player forced to back off or barged into, who is offended against – yet it is usually the player attempting to tackle who is penalised if he or she ‘holds their ground’.
The primary and ‘common sense’ task of an umpire in the interpretation of player actions and the application of Rule is to ensure ‘fair play’ and play within the Rules (which are intended to make the game reasonably safe for participants), everything else is secondary. Many umpires seem to think that their task is to ensure that there are as many goal-scoring opportunities (penalty corners) awarded as is possible – fairness and common sense nowhere in sight
An example of the kind of ‘thinking’ – which is in my view contrary to common sense – is given in this forum post (22nd July 2012) by a forum moderator, who is also (incredibly) a Level One Umpire Coach
.
So can anyone explain/ describe in what circumstances they think a defender would get the benefit of the clause :The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball……
Yes, I can explain/describe two circumstances: 1) When an attacker voluntarily kicks the ball into the goal, the defender gets a free hit. But that is just pointless cleverness, and is not the answer you are looking for. You want a different answer, based on circumstances involving the ball and foot of a defender. So… 2) When a defender… No, although I can describe it, it is better not to, because there are two possible outcomes: a) you will at last understand the disconnect in your thinking, and will be embarrased at the pointlessness of having repeatedly badgered the forum on this over so many years; b) you will as-usual refuse to believe the rational and carefully thought-out explanation, into which someone had put a lot of time and effort, and post the same question as many times as it takes to prolong this topic, and probably others to come, for many more pages of pointless circling.
There is another way to settle this, for your own peace-of-mind, for the good of the forum, for the benefit of hockey in general: no one (probably including FIH/HRB) must* ever know what ‘only commits an offence if they voluntarily use’ really means. It is to be taken as a bit of nonsense that means whatever the umpire needs it to mean in coming to a fair decision, in the spirit of the rules, protecting skilful play, and penalising cynicism and malice.
must* – yes it a strong word, and I expect some discussion of that. But it occurs to me that, much as some people expect the rules of a sport to have purely objective or legal meaning, the fact that their application requires judgement leads to the most essential rules having a subjective or political element. So in a game whose essence is playing with stick and not foot/body, the foot/body rule will have its legal sense (not stop, kick, propel, etc) surrounded by political phrases, which will be periodically adjusted to nudge the application of the rule to be tighter or looser, when the authorities think umpires have become generally too lenient or too harsh. When the ‘gains benefit’ phrase appeared in the mid-1990s, the rule it went with was ‘intentionally stop, kick, propel…’. That strong word aimed to break the usual application of the rule: penalise every little touch of a foot that was in any way “TO HIS OR HIS TEAM’S ADVANTAGE” (that part of the earlier rule really was in capital letters!). But umpires’ reaction was “They cannot be serious” and to carry on as before, penalising any slight ‘benefit’ (7th of 7 lines of notes), and ignoring ‘intentionally’ (the first word of the actual rule 13.1.2b). I think that even Justin and Deegum would agree that today’s gap between wording and practice yawns a good deal narrower than it did then. For 2004, FIH accepted the political failure and deleted ‘intentionally’, then tried again in 2007 with the more subtle adjustment of ‘voluntarily’ buried in the guidance. That had the desired result of umpires generally waving-on play after irrelevant foot contacts, while continuing to penalise anything important. So while some are unhappy with the legal sense of the current ‘volutarily’ guidance, to change it is a very big risk politically.
So what if an angel came down and touched the HRB, and they gave us a phrase that was no longer political but objective (maybe something to do with opponents’ possession or opportunity to play the ball?)? What then? There would be a note on page 5 to say that “the rule has changed but the interpretation stays the same” or “actions of this sort can be dealt with under other rules”, and 2 years later FHF would be having a pointless circular discussion about the meaning of ‘voluntarily’ in the old rule.
Back to the original topic: the forced foul rule is deleted in acceptance that it is fair play for an attacker to put the ball onto a defender’s foot in the circle, and thereby encourage the defensive skill of taking the ball off the attacker before they can do it.
Incredible. I reads like a lampooning skit by a buffoon, but I think he intends his conclusions to be taken seriously.
The same person memorably declared in a post a couple of years ago that defenders on the goal-line were penalised if hit with a (dangerously) raised ball as a safety measure. He ‘reasoned’ that such penalty discouraged defenders from taking up such positions. It didn’t seem to occur to him that a player propelling a ball high at a defender defending the goal could in any way be responsible for the consequences of doing so and could (and often should in fairness) be penalised for dangerous play.
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.
Comments made about my observations on the dangerous play by the attacker in the video clip posted on You Tube.
thats dangerous how?/
the defender makes this situation dangerous by running down the line of the goal with no valid attempt to play the ball
the runner shouldn’t have run straight at the dragflicker
this is another penalty corner EVERY TIME. The attacker is allowed to flick the ball at any height from a penalty corner, and the defender is allowed to stop it, but here the defender has stpped the ball with his Body, not his stick, so it is a fowl.
So much for participants knowing the Rules or even much about playing hockey.
Penalty Corner 13.3.
(l). l for second and subsequent hits at the goal and for flicks, deflections and scoops, it is permitted to raise the ball to any height but this must not be dangerous
A defender who is clearly running into the shot or into the taker without attempting to play the ball with their stick must be penalised for dangerous play.
Otherwise, if a defender is within five metres of the first shot at goal during the taking of a penalty corner and is struck by the ball below the knee, another penalty corner must be awarded or is struck on or above the knee in a normal stance, the shot is judged to be dangerous and a free hit must be awarded to the defending team.
It would probably be better if the Guidance for the Rule phrase “but this must not be dangerous” concerning a raised shot, was put first instead of last. It might then be read. Some participants are obviously not reading all of the given Rule Guidance or only remember the bits they like. Attention is diverted away from the Guidance to what is a prohibited action ‘dangerous raising of the ball’ , an action by the attacking player, to give reason to penalise the defender and even becomes ‘slanted’ against the defender because of this change of focus.
(Much the same approach was taken with the P.I.T interpretation of the Obstruction Rule the larger portion of which was about physical contact offences by the tackler (also given in the Rule following the Obstruction Rule) with very little attention given in the Obstruction Rule to obstructive play by the player shielding the ball. This so called P.I.T. interpretation (position, intention, timing by the tackler not the player shielding the ball) destroyed the Obstruction Rule before it was removed in 2004)
There also appears to be no understanding that it is not an offence for a defender to run from the goal towards the ball in order to attempt to play the ball with his stick.
An attempt to play the ball with the stick can only be made from within playing distance of the ball. The defender has therefore to close on the ball in order to get within playing distance.That cannot be done without running towards the ball.
The offence mentioned in the Guidance is the playing of the ball with the body having made no attempt at all to play it with the stick. Defending the body with the stick while running towards the ball is using the stick for self defence with the intention of intercepting the shot with the stick. No other assumption can be made about the intention of a penalty corner defending out-runner without clear supporting evidence.
That a player is hit with the ball is not evidence that he intended to be hit with the ball, such an interpretation would make dangerous propelling of the ball an impossibility - but that would fit with the way umpires seem to be coached in respect of an ‘on target’ shot at the goal, which sets up a conflict with the above Guidance of course and with “but this must not be dangerous” of the Rule.
A player would not be admonished not to make a dangerous shot if a shot at the goal could not be dangerous – unless of course there is rule Guidance forbidding an attacker to miss the target and shoot wide of the goal LOL. But then why would a shot wide of the goal be dangerous play and an on-target shot not be? There is no answer offered, except “Because we say so”.
Moving on to situations similar to the one above but where the defender is more than 5m from the ball when hit – What decision should the umpire give?
Who has offended? Obviously if the attacker has played the ball at the defender in a way that endangered him and forced an attempt at self-defence. That should be judged to be dangerous play.
The defender has not offended unless he intentionally plays the ball with the body. At one time there was the possibility of an offence being called against the defender if the defended gained an undue or unfair advantage from an accidental or involuntary ball/body contact,
BUT that applied ONLY if there had been no prior dangerous play by the attacker i.e the contact was not caused by dangerous play by the player who propelled the ball (or one of his team-mates actively preventing a defender using his stick)
AND ‘gained benefit’, as it was called, no longer applies. It was deleted from the 2007-9 Rules of Hockey, then restored on the strength of a ‘note’ during the period 2007-9, but was not returned to the Rules of Hockey in 2009 or since then. To penalise an accidental or forced ball/body contact on the ground of ‘benefit gained’ by the team of the player hit is now incorrect.
One cannot even use semantics to ‘twist’ intended use and make “disadvantaged opponents” create an offence because “disadvantaged opponents” applies only when an offence has been committed, it cannot be (should not be but is) used to ‘create’ an offence from an unintentional or forced breach of Rule which is not an offence . An unintentional breach of Rule 9.11. is not an offence:-
Rule Guidance 9.11.
It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player. The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball or if they position themselves with the intention of stoppingthe ball in this way.
The ‘bottom line’ is that a player should not propel the ball at an opponent in a way that could result in injury to that opponent if hit with the ball. At the moment any ball propelled at an opponent at knee height or above could be considered dangerous play but there is no Rule or Rule Guidance to that effect – it is an umpire judgement and one that many umpires seem incapable of making correctly.
There is no reason at all to penalise a player hit with the ball unless he intentionally used his body to play the ball – and such intention must be clear and certain. The same standard as is applied to the intentionally lifted hit and was applied to forcing offences, before forcing was removed as an offence in 2011, must be applied to ball/body contact. The vast majority of ball/body contacts should be “play on” situations.
It’s odd how readily umpires have taken to the deletion of ‘forcing’ when one considers their reluctance (and even the outright refusal of some) to stop applying “gained benefit” *(the forcing offence is now “dealt with by other Rules” in which the action under consideration is also an offence . We have in many cases at present the absurdity of the forcing of self-defence (which is dangerous play) from a high shot incorrectly being ignored, combined with penalty against a defender hit with the ball for “benefit gained” or “disadvantaged opponents” even though the defender has not committed an offence and the benefit gained clause was removed from Rule 9.11 years ago.
There is an important distinction to be made between an accidental or forced breach of the ball/body contact Rule – not an offence – and an offence. In the case of ball/body contact an offence occurs ONLY when such contact is made voluntarily (intentionally). There are some individuals who insist that voluntarily does not have the same meaning as intentionally – and there may indeed be a subtle difference – but those who insist there is a difference don’t explain what it is in the context of the Rule Guidance. No explanation has ever been offered by the FIH Rules Committee (previously the FIH HRB) for the change of word.
In the majority of cases, particularly at the higher levels the shooter ought to be given a personal penalty, at least a yellow card, for deliberately targeting (making no attempt whatsoever to avoid hitting) the out-running player with the ball in the way seen in the video – that would be placing the emphasis on safety and also, incidentally, on skill – while penalising dangerous play. The idea that a defender is obliged to allow an attacker to shoot without interference (that is without attempting to close and tackle with the stick) is a nonsense.
Here is a suggestion for the Obstruction Rule which contains the current criteria for the offence of ball shielding by a player in possession of the ball. I have not included ‘third party’ obstruction in this suggestion.
I have substituted “demonstrating an intent to play the ball” ( a previous wording) for “attempting to play the ball” because of the way “attempting to play the ball” has been interpreted as “succeeding in playing the ball” – what appear to me to be attempts to play the ball do not seem to be recognized ‘in practice’ or in the coaching videos offered – seehttp://wp.me/pKOEk-Og
The only addition to current Rule I have included is to put in writing, is a long existing convention, that a player in possession of the ball cannot obstruct an opponent with his body if the opponent is behind the play, that is, if the opponent is not the opponent’s own goal-side of the ball. An opponent who is ‘behind the play’ (not his own goal-side of the ball) can still be obstructed by a movement of the stick or leg or arm of the ball holder to fend off a tackle attempt, but it is generally true that opponents ‘behind the play’ cannot be obstructed by the body of a ball holder, a dribbling player who cuts across the path of an opponent coming from the dribbler’s goal-side of the ball is not considered to have obstructed that opponent.
. Rule 9.12 Players must not use the body or stick to shield the ball from an opponent to prevent that opponent from playing the ball.
A player in possession of the ball obstructs an opponent with his body or stick when:-
the ball is within playing distance of the opponent and the opponent is own goal-side of the ball and
the opponent demonstrates an intent to play at the ball and
the only reason the opponent cannot play the ball is because the direct path to it is obstructed by the body or stick of the player in possession of the ball – that is, the ball is shielded from the opponent so as to prevent a legal attempt at a tackle.
Obstruction is therefore an offence that is forced by an opponent when that opponent is within playing distance of the ball and demonstrating an intention to play at the ball.
An obstruction has to be forced, by trying to play at the ball, but cannot be intentionally ‘manufactured’. A player in possession of the ball cannot, for example, play the ball to the far side of an opponent, past or between the opponent’s feet, and then immediately run into that opponent claiming the path to the ball is obstructed, such a player is obliged to go around (or attempt to go around) an opponent by-passed with the ball in the way described.
A player also obstructs if there is any interference with the stick or body of an opponent while the opponent is attempting to play at the ball.
An opponent ‘behind the play’ can be obstructed by a movement of the stick or leg or arm/hand of the ball holder to fend off a tackle attempt made from the front or either side or from behind the ball holder’s position.
The receiving player. A player receiving the ball is permitted to be facing in any direction, but if closely marked by an opponent while receiving, must pass the ball away immediately it is under control or, as it is controlled, move away with it at a speed that will put and keep it beyond the playing reach of the opponent : unlessa positionfacing the closing opponent is achieved by the receiving player before the opponent is in a position to execute a tackle i.e. the tackler is in a position of balance to tackle and within playing distance of the ball and demonstrating an intention to play at the ball.
This is part of the current Rule Guidance:- A player with the ball is permitted to move off with it in any direction except bodily into an opponent or into a position between the ball and an opponent who is within playing distance of the ball and attempting to play it. But“is permitted to move off with it in any direction” is not directive or prohibitive as the previous “must move off with the ball or pass it” was: the previous clearly directive wording is therefore restored in this proposal – but with “move away” substituted for “move off”.
A player in possession of the ball who is faced with an ‘on-side’ opponent who is within playing distance of the ball and who is attempting to play at it, must not turn with the ball to position between the ball and the opponent to block the opponent’s direct path to the ball.
A player in possession of the ball who turns with it to position the body between an opponent and the ball must not allow that opponent to close to within playing distance of the ball while his or her body is still positioned between the ball and the opponent, that may be obstructive play. Such a turning player is notallowed the leeway given to a player in the act of receiving the ball, that is the time given to a receiver to receive and control the ball, before an obstructive offence may be forced. A player turning away from an opponent while in possession of the ball in a way that places the body between the opponent and the ball mustmaintain the ball at a distance beyond the playing reach of an opponent who is demonstrating an intent to play at the ball or turn while that opponent is not in a position to tackle, the opponent being, for example, off-balance and/or reaching or moving in the wrong direction to do attempt a tackle.
A player with possession of the ball is permitted to move off with it in any direction but must not move bodily into an opponent in a way that causes body contact or obliges the opponent to give way to avoid contact.
A tackle cannot be attempted from a position from which physical contact will result (Rule 9.13). Within the criteria given above, an Obstruction offence occurs when a player in possession of the ball, when moving or stationary, positions the body in relation to the ball or the ball in relation to the body, so that the execution of a legal tackle by an ‘onside’ opponent becomes impossible without that opponent having to attempt to move around the body of the player in possession, to get to the ball . Being obliged to move around an opponent in possession to reach the ball is to be obstructed. Being prevented from succeeding in moving around the player in possession of the ball by further ball or body movement to maintain ball-shielding is further obstructive play.
The following, previously given in Advice for Umpires in the back of rule-books prior to 2004, to be restored as Rule Guidance
Umpires should be aware of players who are in possession of the ball who: • back into an opponent; • turn with the ball from a ball shielding position and try to barge past an opponent; • turn away to shield the ball from an opponent without moving away to put and keep the ball beyond the playing reach of that opponent. • move bodily into the position occupied by an opponent while leading the ball • shield the ball with body, leg or stick and stand still when under pressure; • drag the ball near their back foot when moving down the side-line or along the back-line; • shield the ball by moving the leg or the stick to prevent a legitimate tackle.
The above screed is complicated – and so repetitive in an attempt to provide clarity – but still not the length of the PIT Interpretation of the Obstruction Rule that was finally removed completely in 2004 (part was deleted in 2001). As the Obstruction Rule is probably the most difficult of the Rules to describe fully and adequately without causing confusion the above suggestion will need further work.
I think it a reasonable starting point. Similar examination of the criterion for a dangerously played ball and for a ball/body contact offence – to mention the two most contentious other areas of Rule application – is needed. This would not lead to anything like “a 300 page rule book” as has been claimed by those content to muddle along with the present ambiguities and inconsistencies (insist on applying only their own interpretations – which usually means ignoring the offence altogether).
Where we need to ‘get to’ is to a situation where all ball shielding that prevents the possibility of a legal tackle being attempted is penalised as an offence and have – instead of a situation where possession of the ball is retained by physical blocking and obstructing – one where possession is maintained by passing and dribbling to elude tackles by opponents. The encouragement of speed and skill in moving the ball or moving with the ball to take and keep it beyond the reach of a challenging player in place of the stationary or near stationary ball shielding and body blocking that has ‘evolved’ despite the written Rule.
Without the facility to shield the ball to prevent a tackle players have no option but to develop moving, passing and stick-work skills : with the facility to shield the ball they don’t need to bother to do so and the game as a spectacle suffers and so do movement and stickwork skills.
A recent example of the umpiring of obstructive play. It’s not seen at all. The umpire appears to have no awareness of the Obstruction Rule.
These comments were reported before the Olympics as having been made by the Australia women’s field hockey coach Adam Commens.
Edited 6th May 2013
Olympics-Australia hockey coach unhappy with umpiring standards
Australia women’s hockey coach Adam Commens has criticised umpiring standards less than two months ahead of the Olympics, saying officials are not good enough and struggle with the pace of the game.
Speaking after Australia lost 4-1 to Olympic champions Netherlands in the final of an invitational event in London, Commens said umpires were doing their best but finding it hard to implement the International Hockey Federation’s (FIH) rules.
“The FIH have asked for different interpretations on aerial balls, tackles, the five-metre rule and on masks and that makes it really difficult for umpires,” Commens told the Australian Associated Press news agency after Sunday’s loss.
“We are thinking one thing and they (the umpires) are thinking something else.
“They are struggling with the speed of the game and the skill levels. They are doing their best but, unfortunately, it’s not good enough.”
I agree with the last reported remark above and with “…..finding it hard to implement the International Hockey Federation’s (FIH) rules” but I would not have highlighted the particular Rule areas Commens does, except the various 5m requirements that were imposed in 2009 particularly those concerning the self-pass, and I think umpires have difficulty more because of the way they are coached than because of a lack of ability or the speed of the game. His criticisms may be valid, it is hard to know because he does not really tell us what they are.“Tackles” may refer to the difficulty players have in tackling when deliberately obstructed, I don’t know.
I put the Obstruction Rule ‘front and centre’ of the current failings in umpiring, closely followed by application of the ball/body contact Rule and the rules and guidance concerning the dangerously played ball, particularly the raised shot at goal.
Many players and indeed many umpires appear to be unaware that there is an Obstruction Rule unique to field hockey: the possibility of an obstructive offence occurring without there being any physical contact at all. Most umpires would be hard pressed to describe an instance of ball shielding without physical contact with an opponent that they would penalise in one direction or the other. It is therefore necessary to describe and, if possible, to define, obstructive play within the Rules.
How is a player obstructed?
There are two kinds of obstruction. 1) Third party, which I believe is generally well understood (despite the coaching video produced by the Umpiring Committee on the Dartfish website) and
2) The shielding of the ball by a player in possession of it to prevent an opponent attempting a tackle. It is this aspect of the Obstruction Rule where problems have been ‘manufactured’ by ‘interpretation’.
The Rule itself is straightforward:-
9.12 Players must not obstruct an opponent who is attempting to play the ball.
Shielding the ball with the body prevents a direct tackle attempt because it is not legal (legitimate) for any player to attempt to play the ball if by doing so s/he will make physical contact with an opponent:-
9.13 Players must not tackle unless in a position to play the ball without body contact.
There is presently no balance in the way these two complementary Rules are applied – it’s unfair.
If a player in possession of the ball positions their body between the ball and an opponent then the direct path to the ball is obstructed. The concept is simple enough, so why isn’t it working out in practice? The simple answer is because umpires did not and do not want to be bothered with it because decisions concerning obstructive play require judgement of distances and of timing. These can be difficult decisions and therefore can be inconsistent: it is easier to consistently ignore obstructive offences – and for Umpire Coaches consistency seems to be everything .
After a short period players ceased to expect ball-shielding to be penalised and then came to look on it as a skill to be developed (the same kind of path that forcing a foot contact and expecting the award of a penalty against the player hit with the ball has taken) and some players have become very skilful at shielding the ball with their body to prevent (make it impossible) for an opponent to attempt a legal tackle.
Many players when in possession of the ball now use dribbling techniques designed to force an opponent to move away from them to avoid a collision of bodies, they lead the ball, and full ‘back-to-opponent ‘holding off’ or ‘protecting the ball’ – terms commonly used by sports photographers ,who capture the stationary result – is now universally “accepted” i.e. not penalised as obstructive play.
In a few years we have moved from not penalising the more difficult instances of obstructive play – difficult because of uncertainty about the distance from ball of a tackler and timing of a turn with the ball by the ball holder – to ignoring blatant stationary blocking which would certainly have been penalised without hesitation previously. The ‘door was opened’ and then ‘the wind took it off its hinges’.
Umpires grew either lax or confused or both, following changes to Rule Guidance/Interpretation in the early and mid 1990′s, and players and coaches took full advantage of the uncertainty created by umpires who came to use a version of obstruction akin to that seen in soccer.
By the time the nonsense interpretation (the onus on the tackler to be in and if necessary to move to ..etc..) had been completely removed from the rulebook with the rewrite in 2004, ball shielding as an offence had ‘in practice’ ceased to exist. The Rule was unchanged during the entire period but the Guidance to it was not merely interpreted differently, it was gradually – and now is completely - ignored and became irrelevant; umpires followed what other umpires did or did as they were told to do (which was often to ignore the fact that the PIT interpretation was deleted post 2004 – just as they later ignored the deletion of the gains benefit exception clause to the ball/body contact Rule). Even the addition of a Rule Guidance clause in 2009 (in bold below), aimed specifically at turning to interpose the body between an opponent and the ball by the player in possession of the ball, is being ignored.
Players obstruct if they :
– back into an opponent – physically interfere with the stick or body of an opponent – shield the ball from a legitimate tackle with their stick or any part of their body.
A player with the ball is permitted to move off with it in any direction except bodily into an opponent or into a position between the ball and an opponent who is within playing distance of the ball and attempting to play it.
Now only obstruction that also involves physical contact is generally penalised and even that is being ‘eroded’ if it is the ball holder who initiates the contact.
It’s happening because it is easier to umpire without bothering with an Obstruction Rule and it is easier for a player to retain possession of the ball if it can be shielded from an opponent. But is it good for hockey? The answer is ‘No’. Why not? Because it is leading – has led - to a physical contact game. It diminishes the previous emphasis on ‘stick-work’ skills – without shielding of the ball – and it results in deliberate time-wasting by ball holding in corners and against side-lines in preference to moving the ball or moving with the ball, which leads eventually to a decline in these skills – obstructive play is often substituted for stick-work and passing skills .
The development of improved synthetic surfaces and synthetic sticks and also better sports science, has disguised a general fall in skill level because these things, truer surfaces, availability of pitches for training at all times and weathers and lighter stronger sticks, have enabled the development of fitness and stick skills. The game has got faster, Umpires Coaches and the Rules are not coping with this and this is most apparent in the application (or more accurately the non-application) of the Obstruction Rule.
Without any apparent change to this Rule and Rule Guidance/Interpretation since 1993, as the 2004 rewrite was very nearly identical, (there is only one significant difference – “must” being replaced with “is permitted to”) there has been a profound change in application. A player of that earlier time – which is very recent in the long history of the game – would not now, were he to see it, be able to reconcile the current Rule application with the 1992 application.
Younger people may (do) ‘fall over laughing’ at the idea that a Rule application or interpretation, without a change of word meaning, could or should remain unchanged for twenty years, but then they will insist that some Rules which have been in place for a hundred or even a hundred and fifty years, ‘back-sticks’ for example, remain unchanged. Technical developments and safety issues aside, there is no good reason why Rules should change. Laziness and incompetence certainly aren’t in any case good excuses to allow changes to Rule application to occur.
Alternative wording for the Obstruction Rule can be suggested and have done that in another article, (see http://wp.me/pKOEk-Es) but the real problem is one of attitude. If players and umpires are unconvinced that an Obstruction Rule is necessary or have been convinced by others that it is detrimental to a ‘flowing’ game, then no amount of juggling with the wording of the Rule and Rule Guidance will persuade them to accept it.
I wonder how Commens expects umpires to respond to his remarks.
*****************************************
The comments from Commens were picked up on an Internet hockey forum and in reply to a poster who wrote that umpires ought to be following what was given in the Rules of Hockey this was posted:-
I disagree. If we stick with the letter-of-the-rule approach, like you appear to be suggesting, we will either have to get several new rule books per year, or have two yearly sudden increases in skill as each new rule book comes out and umpires suddenly have to change how a rule is blown and thus where the sport is progressing to. Similarly, rule books will be about 300 pages thicker so that they actually cover every eventuality that can arise to allow us to umpire to the letter of the rule for every single thing that happens in a match.
The current trickle-down approach is far more organic and natural – a team starts doing something the FIH does/doesn’t like, and umpiring modifies slightly to reward this new good skill/prevent the bad skill. This organic evolution of the game cannot be codified regularly for the reasons outlines above, which is why we need to maintain the current evolution of interpretation we see at international levels. If a team cannot or will not adapt to the adapting interpretations or want to stick to old interpretations or interpretations that are simply counter to what the FIH umpires are doing, then it is their problem IMO, and they shouldn’t complain.
What was that again? If a team cannot or will not adapt to the adapting interpretations (the inventions of umpires which often ignore or conflict with the Rules of Hockey published by the FIH Rules Committee)or want to stick to old interpretations or interpretationsthat are simply counter to what the FIH umpires are doing, (which is often contrary to what is given in the Rules of Hockey) then it is their problem IMO, and they shouldn’t complain.
That is the kind of arrogant attitude and betrayal of a position of trust that leaves players and team coaches speechless or spluttering with anger and indignation. The remarks about the possibility of 300 page rulebook and an increase in the number of rulebook issues are silly and disingenuous. The evolution of the game, ‘organic’ or not, is not and should not be in the control of umpires. Umpires are on the pitch to apply as fairly as possible the published Rules of Hockey that they and all other participants are expected to know and to observe; if they use their authority on the pitch during a match to do otherwise there is every reason to complain. Umpires should not be a pernicious or subversive influence while doing their appointed task any more than they should, for example, be coaching players during a match. They can write what they wish on Internet forums, but it is to be hoped that note is taken of what they write and they are rebuked, retrained, downgraded or removed entirely from umpiring if they allow personal views, contrary to the published Rules of Hockey, ‘colour’ their decisions.
******************************************
Posted to an Internet hockey forum by an NPHL umpire 18th. June 2012
“Just to add to (sic) the point that FIH-level umpires “are accountable for every call [they] make and when [they] don’t do it “right”, [they] pay for it” and that “The lead is not given by senior umpires, the lead is given by the people we answer to”, here is the appointments list for all FIH level games and tournaments in 2102, as it currently stands.You will notice, on glancing over it, that every tournament that has 4 or more participating teams has an umpire manager appointed to it, or in some cases, more than one. You will also notice that alongside every single umpire manager’s name in the column headed ‘Appointed By’ it says ‘FIH”. Yes, that’s right, the FIH appoint every single umpire manager to every single FIH-level tournament.So, those people that are holding Keely and her colleagues to account, are, in turn, being held to account by the FIH, as it is they who appoint them. One assumes, therefore, that if the UMs and umpires continue to be appointed by the FIH then they must be doing what the FIH want. I’ve made this point many times over the years on several different forums and for some reason there are still a handful of people who think that UMs and senior umpires are somehow subverting the game by using interpretations that are in some way contrary to what the FIH wants.I just don’t understand the persistence with which they stick to this view despite the clear evidence that it simply cannot be true.”
*****************************************
As usual this umpire missed the point entirely and, because I know he is not stupid, he must be assumed to have done so deliberately, disingenuously.
The official Rules of Hockey are contained within a published booklet called the Rules of Hockey and also on the FIH wed-site. Variations to those rules, applicable only at International Tournament Level are published in Tournament Regulations. There are no Tournament Regulations pertaining to Dangerous play, Obstruction, or the ball/body contact Rule; in fact the Tournament Rule Variations are very limited in scope and impact on Rules pertaining to Conduct of Play, they refer at present only to penalties and to substitution of players.
When, as is the case, umpires can be seen to regularly apply the Rules in a way that is at variance with the published Rules of Hockey – in some cases not apply Rule at all, in others apply an interpretation that is obviously the opposite to what is given in Rule Guidance - it is self-evident that the people who are supposed to be holding umpires to account for their performance in Rule application, are themselves flouting the Rules of Hockey and therefore the wishes of the FIH as given in the rulebook.
The best description of what should be the situation, other than a reading of the Rules of Hockey and Tournament Regulations , that I can offer from “the FIH“, was contained in the Preface of the Rules of Hockey of 2003.
RULES INTERPRETATIONS In the past in addition to the Rules Interpretations included in the Rules Book, briefing papers have occasionally been prepared primarily for umpires at international tournaments. However, we all play the game by the same set of Rules so interpretations in the Rules Book should be as complete as possible. Additional papers should be unnecessary. Accordingly, Appendix B (Rules Interpretations) in this 2003 edition has been significantly revised. It now incorporates the other briefing papers referred to above. At the same time the layout and some parts of the text have been simplified. Everyone is encouraged to read the full revised text of Appendix B.
There was a reformatting of the rulebook in 2004 (page size) and the whole thing was rewritten at the same time. (I think of the result as an act of vandalism). Much that was necessary and useful to players and coaches was stripped out in the name of ‘simplification and clarification’. Rules Interpretations from the back of the book (Appendix B) were combined with Guidance for the Rules of Hockey which had previously been positioned on the page opposite each relevant Rule: both of these were much reduced. The combination of Interpretation and Guidance was a good thing because there had been some conflicts between them, as was the positioning of the reformatted Rule Guidance beneath the Rule it was associated with, but there is no reason to suppose that ‘overnight’ the FIH had decided to do the opposite to what was declared in the statement issued in the Preface of the previous rulebook.
Subsequently the UMBs, which had been on the point of being subsumed into the Rules of Hockey (as they should be) took on a new ‘life’, much supplemented by verbal briefings, and Rule ‘interpretation’ took on an ‘organic character ‘ (to adopt very appropriate term from another post in the forum thread). Simply put, some people have taken on the role of the FIH Rules Committee. If this is what the FIH (the Executive) wants then the FIH Rules Committee should be disbanded. If the FIH Rules Committee is to remain and to be solely responsible for the Rules of Hockey (as it is) then others must allow them to do their task – not contradict them at every turn and then pretend that this is what “the FIH” wants.
The question is “Do we need a rulebook and a published set of Rules or are we content to allow umpires to decide amongst themselves what the Rules should be and how to apply them?” We cannot have both situations. It comes to that choice because umpires (Umpire Managers, Umpire Coaches) have demonstrated repeatedly that they are not prepared to follow what is given in the Rules of Hockey in a significant number of important areas, and some, who endorsed the post, that contained this :- “If a team cannot or will not adapt to the adapting interpretations or want to stick to old interpretations or interpretations that are simply counter to what the FIH umpires are doing, then it is their problem IMO, and they shouldn’t complain.“ believe players and team coaches have no right to complainabout that. These same umpires pretend to have the interests of players ‘at heart’. Their primary motivations however appears to be making umpiring easy and self-aggrandizement.
I rewrite the quoted sentence as I believe it should be put.If any participants or officials cannot or will not adapt to the current Rules and Rules Guidance or want to stick to old interpretations or introduce new interpretations that are simply counter to the Rules of Hockey, then that is a problem and they should lobby the FIH Rules Committee for change, giving a good reason for change and offering alternatives for consideration – but in the meantime must continue to apply the Rules and Rule Guidance as given by the FIH Rules Committee.
I have disagreed strongly with those umpires or groups of umpires who do what they want to do and insist it is what “the FIH” wants, and I will continue to do so. No matter how widespread an umpiring practice is, if it contradicts or is not compliant with what is written in the Rules of Hockey it is contrary to the Rules of Hockey.
I am not entirely sympathetic to the moans of International team coaches either: another Australian coach was recently critical of the decision making of his players because they were shooting at the goal instead of forcing a penalty corner. Such comments display a woeful ignorance of the Rules of the game, an ignorance that is created and fostered by this attitude. If a team cannot or will not adapt to the adapting interpretations or want to stick to old interpretations or interpretations that are simply counter to what the FIH umpires are doing, then it is their problem IMO, and they shouldn’t complain. but such comments from coaches also shows a willingness to ‘bend’ to strange interpretation if it suites them – and they are certainly not above applying what pressure they can to have umpires apply some Rules very strictly e.g. ball/body contact, and ignore others, e.g. forcing. A forced foot/ball contact is not an offence by the player hit with the ball (and forcing a contact is now considered not an offence only because umpires would not apply the ‘forcing’ Rule when it was an offence, in the same way that they presently do not enforce, for example, ball shielding offences or intentional raising of the ball with a hit in instances where a shot at the goal is not being taken). It is only for the sake of their own consistency - in direct conflict with the given Rule Guidance about contact offences – that umpires have made such unintentional contact an offence (by for example invoking the long deleted ‘Gained benefit‘ or the invention “Disadvantaged opponents” or by pointing to the Rule in isolation and ignoring the instructions given in Guidance concerning application of the Rule.) . Who is at fault, the coach or the umpire ? Clearly both ought to be following the published Rules of Hockey and there should be no expectation of or demand for ’interpretation’ that is obviously contrary to what the FIH Rules Committee have provided in Rule Guidance.
It has to be agreed that many of the Rules need amendment, some Rules should be deleted and there is need for some new ones, but this should not be done by “adapting interpretations” ofexistingRules : there is an established procedure for Rule change that must be followed, ‘the FIH’ have stipulated that in writing.
This is from a question posted recently on Internet field hockey forum. The original question was ‘slanted’ by an implied criticism of the positioning of the defender, the critical remark has been omitted.
GK is beaten, player comes in to take shot at goal. A defender is positioned on the goal-line ……………. Shot or flick is taken within 5m of the defender and hits defender on the body and goes out.
What call should be made?
There were only two replies made to this question on the forum. The first was , “It depends” and reference to a pinned post on the forum which is also inconclusive; the second was “Penalty stroke“.The second answer is clearly incorrect, the first was not an answer.
(I assume here that a ball that hits a standing defender “on the body” has been raised to above knee height.)
Here is my opinion based on the current Rules of Hockey.
Rule 9.8 Players must not play the ball dangerously or in a way which leads to dangerous play.
A ball is considered dangerous when it causes legitimate evasive action by players.
‘Legitimate evasive action’ (which I believe would be better expressed as “the forcing of an opponent to self-defence” an action referred to in John Gawley’s 2001 umpire coaching paper ‘The Lifted Ball’) is not the only definition of a dangerously played ball, there are also objective criterion which apply irrespective of causing an opponent to take evasive action to avoid (or try to avoid) being hit with the ball.
9.9 Players must not intentionally raise the ball from a hit except for a shot at goal.
A raised hit must be judged explicitly on whether or not it is raised intentionally. It is not an offence to raise the ball unintentionally from a hit, including a free hit, anywhere on the field unless it is dangerous.
If the ball is raised over an opponent’s stick or body on the ground, even within the circle, it is permitted unless judged to be dangerous.
Players are permitted to raise the ball with a flick or scoop provided it is not dangerous. A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous. (My bold. No mention here of height or velocity)
Putting the last clause above with that relating to a shot at goal during a penalty corner which is raised to above knee height, and assuming that rules that apply to flicks and scoops also apply to raised hits (which seems sensible as they are mentioned in the same Rule ); a hit or a flick that is raised to above knee height and at a player who is within 5m, must be considered dangerous play – evasive action is not mentioned in either Rule 9.9 or the penalty corner Rules.
Whether or not a ball raised from within 5m endangers a player has nothing whatsoever to do with his skill level or his reaction times, it depends entirely on the height and velocity of the ball, that is the propensity of that ball to injure anyone it was propelled at – and in any case a ball has endangered a player if self-defence is forced (caused).
It might be acceptable, even if velocity is not mentioned in the Rule or Rule Guidance, to say a ball raised high at a player is not dangerous if it is of low velocity, a lob for example. It is not however, in my view, acceptable to suggest that a raised ball of high velocity is not dangerous because of the presumed skill level of the players. There are no differences in Rules or differences in application of Rule for different levels of play or presumed differences in skill levels. Even the variations to the Rules of Hockey that do exist for International level i.e. Tournament play, are not based on the perceived skills of the players. The two minute suspension for a green card in FIH International Tournaments and variation in substitution procedures are not skill-level based Rule variations.
If a ball will injure a player if he does not defend himself against it then it has endangered him. It is irrelevant to the offence of endangerment (dangerous play) if the defence is successful or unsuccessful, (the player plays the ball with his stick, evades the ball or is hit with it) it is the causing (forcing) by dangerous play of a defensive action to avoid injury that is the offence – in fact defines the offence – the same ball will not be considered dangerous play if it is not propelled at a player. If the ball is successfully defended but nonetheless disadvantages the defender or the umpire wishes to discourage such dangerous play, then the umpire should penalise the player who propelled the ball. A ball may be penalised as dangerous even if successfully defended with a stick, the criteria is endangerment not injury.
Players of high skill level do not necessarily have faster reactions than the average club player and are not exempt from the unexpected or from injury if hit with the ball. In any case attackers of equally high skill level to the defenders opposing them in top level games should have the skill not to propel the ball at an opponent.
It is obvious that ‘in back’ of the answers given (and not given) to the forum question is the prevailing attitude that a different approach is or ought to be taken to a raised shot at the goal than might be taken to a ball raised at a player in mid-field; there are no grounds for this view. The fact that a ball may be intentionally raised with a hit while shooting at the goal does not nullify any Rule concerning playing the ball in a way that endangers another player.
The Rule Guidance would be improved with the addition of reference to velocity and height but it is not ambiguous – any ball raised at above knee height at a player who is within 5m is dangerous play and should be penalised as such, especially if that player or his team are disadvantaged by the offence. There is no reason for the umpire to reward either dangerous play or recklessness or lack of shooting skill just because the ball is propelled at the goal: players cannot legitimately shoot ‘through’ opponents. That unfortunately is not a view shared by all, in fact the opposite view is actively promoted and not just by the ignorant as in this quote: -
“Penalty corners are another story all together I believe in the higher grades the posties should have to wear a mask and with saying that everyone that plays hockey know the risk and still choose to put themselves in the line of fire. Rules state everything goes in the D IF you are having a direct shot at goal if you choose to stand there knowing full well that’s the rule they are there at their own risk. It’s not a wimpy sport if you can’t deal with it don’t play it and stay at home and knit”
but much the same view can be expressed even by (or especially by) umpires and umpire coaches but ‘dressed’ in moderate language,
There is not a great deal of difference between saying “At the higher levels almost no shot will be considered dangerous.” (from an umpire coach, with what “almost” might mean not explained) and “Rules state everything goes in the D IF you are having a direct shot at goal “.
It may well be the case that at higher levels umpires will not penalise dangerous play, because despite Rule Guidance to the contrary, it is in their opinion not dangerous, that is evasive action is not seen as legitimate or a player hit with the ball is judged, without any evidence other than the fact of being hit with the ball, to have intended to use the body to play it.
There is a strong case for the use of existing objective criteria and for the introduction of additional objective criteria to deal with shots made from beyond 5m i.e. up to 15m from a player – subjective judgement alone is clearly not good enough i.e. it is unsafe or is not ‘judgement’ at all, the decision always going against the defender as per the instructions the umpire has been given. The Rules do not state that “everything goes” when a direct shot at goal is being made, that would be the same as saying that “there is a Rule that there is no Rule”, which is illogical. But regrettably umpires, and so of course players, behave as if this is the case.
Acceptance of risk is acceptance of the risk of accidental incidents, such as deflections, only and not of deliberate and/or reckless breaches of Rule.
The correct answer to the question posed at the start is a 15m free to the defence for a clear contravention of ” ball propelled at a player within 5m at above knee height” which, according to Rule Guidance, is dangerous play.
The ball does not of course have to be raised above knee height to be dangerous to a defender who has fallen to the ground. Here is an example of clueless umpiring that illustrates this point.
If we pretend for the moment that there is a ‘gained benefit’ clause (which is clearly necessary to deal with incidents like this) or that the body/ball contact by the defender hit was intentional, then the first ball/body contact should have been penalised and a penalty stroke awarded.
But the umpire did not intervene, he allowed a second shot by another attacker. That second shot was made into the body of the defender, who was still on the ground, that shot was clearly dangerous and reckless (the attacking player had time and choices). The umpire should have then awarded a 15m, he should not, having played ‘advantage’, allowing a second shot, have reverted to a penalty stroke for the first contact and nor should he have awarded a penalty stroke for the second. As the UMB points out, whistle timing is critical and common sense should be applied.
.
h. from a free hit awarded to the attack within the 23 metres area, the ball must not be played into the circle until it has travelled at least 5 metres or has been touched by a player of either team other than the player taking the free hit.
Is this because a free hit is inherently dangerous or because direct hits into the circle in open play – no matter how made – are not dangerous?
The attacker in the clip below deliberately breaches two Rules when playing the ball into the circle.
1) Use of forehand edge when hitting the ball hard.
2) Intentionally raising the ball with a hit.
Both offences are ignored (or not seen) by the umpire – and that, although clearly incorrect, is obviously what the players expected.
There is a probably a third offence. I think raising the ball into a group of players from opposing sides who are positioned in front of the goal to be play likely to lead to dangerous play (the previous wording of the dangerously played ball Rule) – now that the wording is “leads to dangerous play” the judgement “likely to” has been removed. This begs the question “What would be considered a dangerously raised ball in these circumstances?”
It would make far more sense to allow a free awarded in the 23m area to be played directly into the circle but to prohibit any raising of the ball into the circle with a hit – accidental or not – and also to prohibit an above knee height deflection of the ball into the circle off the stick of an attacker. Treating an open play raised ball differently to one played from a free awarded in the opposition’s 23m area – for safety reasons – is absurd when there is such a cavalier attitude to obvious and potentially dangerous breaches of Rule in open play.
Why has this been allowed to happen – for consistency, common sense, because ” It is what the FIH wants” ? (Which is obviously not the case as it conflicts with the Rules of Hockey provided by the FIH)
Since the retirement of the late George Croft as Hon. Sec. of the Hockey Rules Board, the game has been changed beyond recognition, by which I mean that some of the Rules and Rule Guidance to which the game is supposedly played are no longer recognized, there is sometimes ‘lip service’ to the existence of them, but they are no longer applied as written and certainly not as intended – or even as given in the last amendments published by the HRB in 2009 or the FIH Rules Committee in 2011.
The first of them is of course the Rule concerning the playing of the ball in a dangerous way.
Rule 9.8 Players must not play the ball dangerously or in a way which leads to dangerous play. A ball is considered dangerous when it causes legitimate evasive action by players. The penalty is awarded where the action causing the danger took place.
Added to Rule 9.8 is this from Rule 9.9. which is the Rule on intentional raising of the ball with a hit.
A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous.
and then this from the Rules concerning the penalty corner.
13.3.l. for second and subsequent hits at the goal and for flicks, deflections and scoops, it is permitted to raise the ball to any height but this must not be dangerous
if a defender is within five metres of the first shot at goal during the taking of a penalty corner and is struck by the ball below the knee, another penalty corner must be awarded or is struck on or above the knee in a normal stance, the shot is judged to be dangerous and a free hit must be awarded to the defending team.
From the above Rule clauses two conclusions have apparently (because they are common practice) been arrived at. 1) It will never be considered dangerous play to propel a ball at a (standing) opponent at below knee height. 2) An ‘on-target’ shot at the goal cannot be dangerous.
It is easy enough to see where the first conclusion comes from and there is circumspect advice in the UMB that“Low balls over defenders sticks in a controlled manner that hit half shin pad are not dangerous”which gives partial support for it, but it is not generally correct: each instance should be viewed in a subjective way taking into consideration intent, recklessness, etc.
The second conclusion, that an ‘on-target’ shot cannot be dangerous, is simply outrageous and a direct contradiction of the intent of the Rule in situations where the goal is defended by players positioned between the shooter and the goal, because it renders irrelevant ‘legitimate evasive action’, which is the only definition of a dangerously played ball there is. If a defender was forbidden to positioned between a shooter and the goal there would be no need for the term ‘legitimate evasive action’ because the positioning could not be legitimate so evasion from the position adopted could not be legitimate – and that seems to be the approach taken to players who attempt to defend a shot at the goal.
The obvious solution is to apply the same kind of objective criteria to any ball that is raised as is applied to the first raised shot at a penalty corner if the ball is hit – not the same criteria but the same kind of criteria ie. objective criteria- but with some refinements. It is prohibited to raise a first hit shot at the goal at a penalty corner above 460mm (an objective criteria) in any circumstances , the ball need not be at a player to be penalised, it could be at an empty goal. But for a dangerously played ball there must be the possibility of endangerment, so the first criteria suggested is that the ball is propelled at (towards) a player. (In effect replacing a Rule which was altered in 2004A player must not raise the ball at another playerand was – strangely – moved to the Guidance embedded with Rule 9.9 and had a 5m limit attached to it)
The second consideration is distance. There are already in place the above Rules relating to 5m, but there is a erroneous perception from them that a ball cannot be propelled at a player in a dangerous way from beyond 5m. Given human reaction times, once players are aware that the ball is moving in their direction, just beyond 5m is hopelessly inadequate as a safe distance from which to raise the ball at a player at above knee height.
Taking 0.2 sec as an average reaction time between awareness (sight) and response (any detectable movement), a ball with a velocity of 70mph (not fast by top-level drag-flick standards) will travel approximately 6.32m in that time.
In 0.5 secs. about the time required to respond with the stick to the flight-path of a ball, such a ball will have moved approximately 15.79 m. It is reasonable to suggest that a ball propelled high and at high velocity at another player from within 15m. should be considered potentially dangerous – and that is what is being considered, potential endangerment.
Next is height. The reason the UMB suggests that half shin pad height is not dangerous is because players should be wearing shin-pads, but even if they are not, a hit with the ball on the lower leg is not likely to be immediately life-threatening or to cause permanent injury. But if a player is hit around the heart or in the throat or head that situation changes. These are areas of the body above elbow height, so elbow height, besides being an easy to see reference point (like knee height) is the suggested height for ‘dangerous’.
This leaves a ‘grey area’ between knee height and elbow height once the ball is more than 5m from an opponent, but umpires should be able to apply common sense and subjective judgement in this (as they claim to at the moment) without recourse to a tape-measure.
A degree of subjective judgement is also required about velocity. An umpire cannot know if the ball is traveling at a velocity of 69 mph or 73 mph or any other speed, with great accuracy, but can determine if the ball is traveling at a velocity that could cause injury to any player hit with it at the height it is traveling. A hit to the leg, that would perhaps be temporarily painful but not incapacitate the player hit, might fracture the skull of that same player if they were hit on the head – even a ball of moderate speed can cause severe face or head injury.
So there they are 1) At a player 2) Within 15m 3) Above elbow height 4) At a velocity that could injure. Then both players and umpires would know when evasive action was legitimate.
The down-side, if it can be called that, is that consideration for the safety of defenders makes it more difficult to score a goal more skill is required to keep the ball low or target an area not occupied by a defender. It is much easier (if a foot cannot be ‘found’ to win a penalty corner) just to ‘thrash’ the ball at the goal, preferably with a raised reverse edge hit, and if a penalty corner is ‘won’ to flick the ball high at the goal as powerfully as possible without regard for the positions of defenders (or even to ‘target’ defending players) ; regrettably such cynicism is not uncommon.
There are two other Rules to consider. The first, the Obstruction Rule needs a little amendment (the replacement of “is permitted to” with “must“) but it then needs to be applied, with its Guidance, as it is currently written.
9.12 Players must not obstruct an opponent who is attempting to play the ball. Players obstruct if they : – back into an opponent – physically interfere with the stick or body of an opponent – shield the ball from a legitimate tackle with their stick or any part of their body.
A stationary player receiving the ball is permitted to face in any direction. A player with the ball is permitted to move off with it in any direction except bodily into an opponent or into a position between the ball and an opponent who is within playing distance of the ball and attempting to play it.
A player who runs in front of or blocks an opponent to stop them legitimately playing or attempting to play the ball is obstructing (this is third party or shadow obstruction). This also applies if an attacker runs across or blocks defenders (including the goalkeeper or player with goalkeeping privileges) when a penalty corner is being taken.
But it would probably be helpful to list obstructive acts – all of which are now generally ignored - in the UMB and the current rulebook as they were listed in 2003 in the Advice for Umpires section then at the back of that rulebook :-
Umpires should be aware of players who are in possession of the ball who: - back into an opponent; - turn and try to push past an opponent; - shield the ball with body, leg or stick and stand still when under pressure; - drag the ball near their back foot when moving down the side-line or along the back-line; - shield the ball with the stick to prevent a legitimate tackle.
It would, however, be better all round if the UMB, with its unauthorized additions to Rule Guidance and conflicts with the published Rules, ceased to be published at all – it is worse than an utterly useless document because it is divisive – and furthermore it was supposed to have been discontinued having been subsumed into the rulebook after 2002.
From Content of the Rulebook 2002
RULES’ INTERPRETATIONS In the past, in addition to the Rules Interpretations included in the Rules Book, briefing papers have occasionally been prepared primarily for umpires at international tournaments. However, we all play the game by the same set of Rules so interpretations in the Rules Book should be as complete as possible. Additional papers should be unnecessary. Accordingly, Appendix B (Rules Interpretations) in this 2002 edition has been significantly revised. It now incorporates the other briefing papers referred to above. At the same time the layout and some parts of the text have been simplified. Everyone is encouraged to read the full revised text of Appendix B.
(So much for good intentions).
Third-party obstruction should be considered under a separate heading and not ‘mixed up’ as it is now with obstruction by a player in possession of the ball.
Lastly, Rule 9.11 needs to be restored and simplified as:-
Field players must not intentionally play the ball with any part of their body.
This simply moves the word ‘intentionally’ back to the Rule where it was and has been for much of the time hockey has been played. This is necessary because some National Associations, Australia for example, seem to regard the Rule Guidance as optional (except when it suits them not to do so – as in the Obstruction Rule, where Guidance which was deleted in 2001 is applied as if current).
One result of this approach to Rule Guidance is the regarding of all ball/body contact as an offence – which is the opposite of what was originally intended, and is still intended if the Rule Guidance is taken proper account of. The skill of making space in the circle to score a goal has been replaced with merely getting into the circle and then ‘finding a foot’ – pathetic.
.
Several other deleted areas such as Gains Benefit and Forcing as an offence need restoration, with rewording to make them more precise, but the rescue of the game – conducted as now as a form of ‘soccer’ with sticks – depends mainly on the repair or restoration of the three Rules areas set out above.
.
Link to Index of Ruleshttp://wp.me/p3tNmd-3
A statement by a senior umpire recently posted on a closed Internet field hockey board.
Despite what some would have you believe, there are no major conflicts between the rule book, how that is interpreted by FIH umpires and how the FIH wants the game blown.
Let’s take another look at that statement. What is the umpire who wrote it claiming? Well he declares you are being lied to by “some” who claim there are major conflicts between:-
1) The content of the rulebook and the way the FIH want the Rules ‘blown’ (applied).
2) What is written in the book and how that is interpreted by FIH Umpires – i.e. conflict about the meaning of the language used in the Rules and Rule Guidance and also conflict about the purpose of the advice, Rule and Rule Guidance that is given in the rulebook – the intent of the Rules.
3) The way the content of the rulebook is interpreted by FIH umpires and how the FIH want the Rules applied.
I agree there is no conflict between the content of the rulebook and the way the FIH wants the Rules applied. The Rules are drafted by the FIH Rules Committee and approved by the FIH Executive. In matters of Rules for Conduct of Play, equipment specs and related areas, theses two bodies are “the FIH”, so what is written in the Rules of Hockey is what the FIH want. This degree of truth lends credence to the falsehood that there is no major conflict.
The conflict is in areas 2) and 3) How FIH Umpires (or any other group of umpires) choose to interpret and apply the Rules and Rule Guidance i.e. how they interpret what the FIH want or in other words, how they interpret what the FIH Rules Committee have published in the Rules of Hockey.
The same individual who wrote the quoted statement has suggested on the previous occasions he has submitted the same declaration (at least half-a-dozen times previously), that if umpires were not doing what the FIH wanted they (the umpires) would not continue to be reappointed. There is something in that, but then who replaces them? Umpires who have been trained in the same way by the same people who coached the current crop? It is not as easy to make sweeping changes as we might like after years of verbal ‘cascading’ of personal opinion. This is not a matter of trimming a few dead branches, the whole tree has to be uprooted and a new one planted, the core is rotten.
The FIH Appointments Committee should not have anything at all to do with the drafting and adoption of Rules and Rule Guidance, and (in theory) the FIH Umpiring Committee only a consultative role, pertaining perhaps to the impact on or difficulty for umpires in applying changes made to Rule or Rule Guidance i.e. those drafted by the FIH Rules Committee for approval by the FIH Executive. To this end the FIH Umpiring Ciommittee produce the UMB (Umpire Managers Briefing for Umpires at FIH Tournaments) – which is NOT the Rules of Hockey and can never conflict with the Rules of Hockey, but in fact the UMB is used to alter the the intended application of the Rules of Hockey.
Going back to 2) - Who or what is the conflict of the FIH Umpires with and why is there conflict? The answer is a) the meaning of language b) common sense and c) fairness – so, everybody and everything – and it is done in the name of ‘consistency’. So how are they getting away with it?
They get away with it because they are almost unchallenged, largely because of a general apathy, and because they issue statements in Internet forums like the one above – along the lines ‘We are right so we must be right’ e.g. “This is what other (or all) FIH Umpires do” are typical ‘conclusive arguments’ – statements and attitudes designed to resist and repel any ‘outside’ influence on how they umpire.
FIH Umpire Managers and FIH Umpire Coaches behave as if they ARE “the FIH”, even some individual FIH Umpires do so and can become furious if their opinion is challenged. They like to treat everybody outside the umpiring fraternity as if they are players under their authority on a pitch during a hockey match – where questioning may be treated as dissent and met with punishment. “Despite what some would have you believe, there are no major conflicts between the rule book, how that is interpreted by FIH umpires and how the FIH wants the game blown.“
The conflicts ‘boil down’ to understanding the meaning and intent of the Rules and Rule Guidance provided by the FIH Rules Committee. Major conflict is easy to demonstrate.
Major conflict: No reading of the Rule 9.8 or any other Rule could possibly lead to the conclusion that an on target shot at the goal cannot be dangerous play.
Major conflict: No reading of Rule 9.12 could possibly lead to the conclusion that the player attempting to tackle in the picture shown is not obstructed – but quite obviously neither player is expecting an ‘obstruction’ call and the umpire did not recognize the ball holder’s actions (or lack of action) as obstructive play – ball shielding to prevent a legitimate tackle.
Previous umpiring practice has led to ignorance of the Rule – and not only this one. How umpires apply the Rules, not what is written in the Rules of Hockey, has come to dictate what the Rules are or are perceived to be.
.
.
.
.
Major conflict: No reading of Rule 9.9 could possibly lead to the conclusion that intentionally raising the ball into the circle with a hit is not an offence or can be ignored unless dangerous.(It is sloppy of the FIH Executive to allow contradiction of this point in the UMB )
Major conflict: No reading of Rule 9.11. could possibly lead to the conclusion that all ball/body contacts are offences and that any ball/body contact may be penalised. FIH Umpires and others will be quick to point out in forums and in conversation that they completely agree with this observation, but ‘in practice’ all ball/body contacts are treated as offences.
Major conflict:No reading of Rule 13.1 (Procedure for taking a Free Hit) could possibly lead to the conclusion that, having taken a self-pass when an opponent is still within 5m, the taker is then entitled to move the ball 5m before that opponent may challenge for the ball or otherwise influence the play of the taker (Here again what has been added to the UMB – taken from previous umpiring interpretation – contradicts the Rule Guidance given in Rules of Hockey). If you have any doubt about that then read the Rule and Rule Guidance.
My name is ‘some’ and I am one of thousands who disagree with the statement that there is no conflict between the published Rules of Hockey and the way in which they are applied.
Rule 9.2 Players on the field must hold their stick and not use it in a dangerous way.
Players must not lift their stick over the heads of other players.
The following was the version extant until 1984- no subjective judgement at all – if any part of the stick was above the shoulder in the play described an offence had occurred.
Rule 12. 1. e) A player must not raise any part of his stick above his shoulder, either at the beginning or at the end of a stroke, when approaching, attempting to play, playing the ball, or stopping the ball.
From 1995 to 2004, (when the current Rule was introduced), the Rule read:-
Players shall not: 13.1.1 Use of stick and playing equipment a. play the ball intentionally with the back of the stick b. take part in or interfere with the game unless they have their sticks in their hand c. play the ball above shoulder height with any part of their sticks d. lift their sticks over the heads of players e. use their sticks in a manner that is dangerous, intimidating or hampering f. play the ball dangerously or in such a way as to be likely to lead to dangerous play.
The emphasis had moved from raising any part of the stick above the shoulder to the playing of the ball (but not, oddly, attempting to play the ball) at above shoulder height. Now of course a defender is allowed to play an on target shot at the goal that is above shoulder height – and there is pressure to further ease restriction on such the playing of the ball.
That’s fine except for one thing, ‘dangerous’ remains a subjective judgement. This is not a serious problem when dealing with the playing of an aerial ball at above shoulder height because there is an encroachment Rule which should keep a player likely to contest for a falling ball at least 5m away until the ball is on the ground. But in moving the focus to the playing of the ball at above shoulder height it has been moved from other dangerous use of the stick. I can’t recall the last time I saw a player penalised for using the stick in a dangerous or illegal way other than while playing the ball at above shoulder height when an aerial pass had been made.
Prior to 1984 players could be penalised for just approaching a ball on the ground while raising their stick above their shoulder, even if there was no opponent anywhere near them: so players had to learn how to hit the ball without raising the stick head with a high back-swing or high follow-through. As a consequence there were very few head/face injuries from stick contacts and those that did occur were almost always caused as a result of a tackler coming in to tackle with their head low – usually on the blind-side of a striker.
It must have been considered silly to penalise a player for using a high stick when there was no opponent close enough to be injured with the swinging stick, and so it was, but in changing what was permitted and introducing ‘dangerous use’ as the sole criteria, the ‘baby was thrown out with the bath water’, because there was no guidance given as to what constituted ‘dangerous use’, other than lifting the stick over (from one side to the other) the head of an opponent. Because there is no guidance about other possible ‘dangerous use’ it seems to be assumed there cannot be any. (This is similar to the assumption, made by many participants, that because it is dangerous play to raise the ball at above knee height at an opponent who is within 5m, it cannot be dangerous play to similarly raise the ball at a player who is more than 5m away; that is obviously a flawed conclusion when a ball may be propelled at close to 100mph).
The long term result of this decrease in awareness of danger from the use of the stick has been that players no longer commonly use a low stick-swing to hit the ball and the number of head/face injuries caused by contact with the hockey stick has risen dramatically since the mid 1980′s, hence the call for goggles and helmets particularly in American High School games.
Here is an example of dangerous use of the stick at a much higher level:-
I originally posted this clip in connection with obstruction, but obviously if there was no high back-swing of the stick – previously an offence, even with no opponent within the swing arc of the stick – there would have been no injury to the player attempting to position to tackle. Incomprehensibly the umpire awarded a free to the Spanish player – but it probably is against the Rules to play at an opponent’s stick with the face even if that player has obstructed the path to the ball.
Here is a more recent example from the Olympic Test Event:-
Most umpires would I think have stopped play as soon as the ball deflected up from the goal-keeper to above head height – it was obviously going to fall among players who would contest for it. I have no idea why this umpire was giving a ‘play on’ signal. If umpires do not intervene in such circumstances sooner or later there will be a serious head/face injury.
Obviously leaving this sort of thing to subjective judgement does not always work as it should and thought needs to be given to prohibiting the raising of any part of the stick above the shoulder when there is an opponent within stick distance.
.
Compare the Rule and Rule Guidance with ‘practice’ of field hockey umpires as seen on the video clips.
Rule 9.11. Ball/body contact Rule
Rule 9.11 Field players must not stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their body.
It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player. The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball or if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way.
It is not an offence if the ball hits the hand holding the stick but would otherwise have hit the stick.
Suggestions.
Restore the word ‘intentionally’ to the Rule and alter the Rule Guidance :-
Field players must not intentionally play the ball with any part of their body.
Play should continue when there is an unintentional ball/body contact unless there has been play dangerous to the player hit or an injury sufficient to justify stoppage.
.
Rule 9.9. Intentionally lifted 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 field unless it is dangerous.
(Only the Rule Guidance related to the lifting of a hit has been reproduced above).
The way in which intention to raise the ball with a hit is ‘read’ contrasts sharply with the reading of intention in the ball/body contact situation (Rule 9.11) where intentional contact seems to be assumed.
The UMB conflicts with the Rules of Hockey – the UMB advising “forget lifted, think danger “, which must mean the intention to lift the ball can also be ‘forgotten’ – while the Rules tell us that the raised hit must be judged explicitly on intention to lift the ball (and of course on danger also).
I believe the way to put this right is to abandon any attempt to read intention in the raising of the ball with a hit and then apply objective criteria to judge ‘dangerous’.
Suggestions.
All raising of the ball directly off the stick of a striker directly into the circle should be prohibited in all phases of play. Leeway could be given for surface conditions but the ball should travel along the ground and not lift off it more than the diameter of the ball at any time.
The deflection of the ball into the opposing circle off the stick of an attacker should be restricted to knee height at any point in the flight of the ball.
In the outfield raising of the ball with a hit should be permitted but restricted in two ways. 1) Height 2) Dangerous play. As at present no ball should be raised at another player within 5m at above knee height. Hits raised towards open areas should be restricted to elbow height. Any ball hit to above elbow height should be penalised as dangerous or as time-wasting.
The ban on playing the ball into the circle from a free in the opposing 23m area should be withdrawn, the requirement to play the ball along the ground (and, as now, from a position at least 5m from the circle) together with prohibition of high deflections into the circle should provide a sufficient alternative safeguard against dangerous play.
Rule 9.12 Obstruction
Rule 9.12 Players must not obstruct an opponent who is attempting to play the ball.
Players obstruct if they :
– back into an opponent – physically interfere with the stick or body of an opponent – shield the ball from a legitimate tackle with their stick or any part of their body.
A stationary player receiving the ball is permitted to face in any direction.
A player with the ball is permitted to move off with it in any direction except bodily into an opponent or into a position between the ball and an opponent who is within playing distance of the ball and attempting to play it.
A player who runs in front of or blocks an opponent to stop them legitimately playing or attempting to play the ball is obstructing (this is third party or shadow obstruction). This also applies if an attacker runs across or blocks defenders (including the goalkeeper or player with goalkeeping privileges) when a penalty corner is being taken.
What determines Conduct of Play in a hockey match is the Obstruction Rule together with the following three Rules.
Rule 9.3 Players must not touch, handle or interfere with other players or their sticks or clothing.
Rule 9.4 Players must not intimidate or impede another player.
Rule 9.8 Players must not play the ball dangerously or in a way which leads to dangerous play.
These four Rules make hockey a unique competitive team ball sport and what can be done to conserve them must be done. Unfortunately all four are ‘under attack’. There was no shortage of video clips to choose from to illustrate that the Obstruction Rule is being largely ignored and that “Ignorance is strength” because this is what “everybody” is doing.
.
Lest anyone have the idea that I am opposed to players turning with the ball I need to say that the freedom to turn away from an opponent, as well as the facility to receive the ball without fear of barging from behind, has been the best tactical development in hockey in the past twenty years. BUT correct timing, distance and direction are vital in turning AWAY from an opponent. Properly done such play is flowing and spectacular.
What we do not need in the game is turning INTO or across opponents and slow moving or stationary blocking of their access to the ball.
Prior to the “clarification and simplification” of the Rules in the restructured rulebook of 2004 part of the Advice to Umpires about obstruction was as follows:
2003
Umpires should be aware of players who are in possession of the ball who: • back into an opponent; • turn and try to push past an opponent; • shield the ball with body, leg or stick and stand still when under pressure; • drag the ball near their back foot when moving down the side-line or along the back-line; • shield the ball with the stick to prevent a legitimate tackle.
All simple and easy to understand instructions and I think clearer than the present rulebook on specific actions which are commonly not penalised in current hockey, despite there being no change in interpretation of this Rule announced by the FIH since 1993.
Rule 9.8 Dangerously played Ball
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.
According to the television commentator of this 2010 World Cup game (perhaps not surprisingly, he had probably not read the Rules of Hockey) but also, astonishingly, according to the umpire, there is no such thing as a dangerous shot which is clearly at the goal.
It is a disgrace that players have to put up with this kind of nonsense and have the ignorant call them petulant for what mild protest is shown. This invention of ‘Rule’ explains the many examples of shooting by attackers that are far more dangerous than the example above (see post Dangerous Shot on goal) and cause serious injuries to defenders with no penalty imposed on those responsible; quite the contrary it is defenders who are penalised for ‘being in the way’ – even if they take or try to take evasive action to avoid injury. Following the ‘logic’ of “Clear shot at goal” (meaning “Clearly an ‘on target’ shot at the goal” rather than a ‘clear shot‘ that is with no-one but the goalkeeper between the shooter and the goal) the following clip does not show an example of a dangerously played ball – but that cannot be so, common sense forbids such a conclusion.
Could it be that the umpire in the China v Spain game misunderstood what was said in a verbal briefing? It is to be hoped that that is the case, but it seems unlikely in view of the number of other similar instances which go ‘unnoticed’. This incident, below, resulted in a corner; even though the defender is clearly within 5m of the ball when it is struck and the ball is considerably above knee height as he takes evasive action. Dangerous ‘with bells on’, evasive action and too high and too close to be other than certainly dangerous. Suicide Runner or Murderous Shooter?
. . There are other questions that might occur to anyone familiar with the Rules of Hockey after listening to the commentary on this clip, for example 1) “Why was an obviously unintentional foot contact penalised at all – especially when it was intentionally forced ?” (such forcing was still illegal at the time of the game in 2010) and
2) “Why would a ball propelled at a defender’s face result in a penalty stroke if it was ‘on target’ , but result in penalty against the shooter for dangerous play if not ‘on target’ ?
It is not an offence to miss the target when attempting to score a goal and the ball endangered the defender ‘on target’ or not. The second question is obviously only a more extreme example of the first one.
It is easy to see how the non-existent “obligation on a defender to defend the feet from the ball” could have ‘evolved’ out of the prohibition on intentionally playing the ball with the foot, but it should not happen, the two things are entirely different concepts. Failing to prevent an opponent forcing a foot/ball contact is not the same as intentionally playing the ball with the foot and the first is certainly not an offence. .
All the facts these TV commentators have at their fingertips but they don’t know the trivia – like the Rules of the game. When one of them mis-said a player’s name someone immediately corrected him via his ear-phones, but ‘mangling’ the Rules does not seem to matter.
In the incident below, unless the raising of the ball into the tackler was considered dangerous, there was no offence by either player and play should have continued. Instead umpires are acting as if ‘gained benefit’ can still be applied to create an offence from an unintentional breach of Rule, and then compounding that by awarding the player who raised the ball the benefit of a free-pass (or in the attacked circle a penalty corner). A double standard is being applied to ‘unintentional’ – so that ball/body contact is seen as an offence, when the action that caused (or forced) it, is not. It would be understandable if this was the other was about – that is in line with the declared ‘Emphasis on safety’. The present application makes no sense at all. .
Look for a foot find a foot … or any other part of the body. The principle commentator made more than a dozen references during the game to a player in possession of the ball deliberately ‘looking for’ and ‘finding’ a foot, as if this practice was a normal and acceptable part of the game. He also expected the player so hit with the ball to be penalised – brainwashing or brain washed? The guest commentator remarked the penalty was “a bit unfair” – an understatement.
.
22nd May 2012
Posted on an Internet forum this week by an umpire :-
Despite what some would have you believe, there are no major conflicts between the rule book, how that is interpreted by FIH umpires and how the FIH wants the game blown.
Ah but there are, that is what is wrong with hockey. To paraphrase Groucho Marx (Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?). Who are you going to believe, that umpire or your own eyes? . Link to Index of Ruleshttp://wp.me/p3tNmd-3
This is a story about corruption, dark intrigue and world domination via field hockey……not really, that is just an echo from something silly that I read. This is the tale of how the clause relating to the gaining of a benefit from an unintentional body/ball contact came to be deleted from the Rules of Hockey- Rule 9.11 – but the text remaining in the Guidance to that Rule being interpreted as if the deletion had not taken place – it’s a sad story.
To begin this convoluted tale we need to look at the relevant Rule and Rule Guidance in the Rules of Hockey in 2006 – the year in which “unless that player or their team benefits from this” last appeared in a rulebook. Following a change of page format and a major rewrite in 2004, the ball/body contact Rule looked rather ‘spartan’ compared to previous versions.
Rules of Hockey 2006 9.10 Field players must not stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their body.
It is not an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player, unless that player or their team benefits from this.
No offence is committed if the ball hits the hand holding the stick but would otherwise have hit the stick.
At the time the Rules of Hockey were revised and printed annually but as there was only one minor change to the Rules of Hockey in 2006 (relating to the curve in a stick) the FIH decided to issue a single page supplement, to be added to the 2005 edition, and not a completely new rulebook.
It is necessary here to ‘side-track’ a little and bring in ‘intentionally’, which in various forms also disappeared and reappeared in the Rules of Hockey in period 2003 -2007. In 2007 the wording of the ball/body contact Rule was revised by the HRB, to reintroduce ‘intention’ in Guidance, reference to intention having been removed from the Rule in 2004. Previously this was the ball/body contact Rule.
Rules of Hockey 2003 Rule 13.1.2 Use of body, hands, feet by players other than goalkeepers. Players shall not:- a. stop or catch the ball with the hand There is nothing to prevent players using their hands to protect themselves from dangerously raised balls.
b. intentionally stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their bodies.
It is not automatically an offence if the ball hits the foot or body of a player. On many occasions when a ball hits the foot or body of a player an offence will not have taken place and play should continue. It is only an offence if the ball hits the foot or body of a player and that player: • moved intentionally into the path of the ball, or • made no effort to avoid being hit, or • was positioned with the clear intention to stop the ball with the foot or body, or • gains benefit.
The 2003 version of the Rule was not perfect but nonetheless quite good (I had – and still have – reservations about “was positioned with the clear intention to stop the ball with the foot or body” unless the ‘positioned’ player is within playing distance of the balland obviously not intending to use the stick. We have ‘crack-pots’ who declare that a defender positioned on the goal-line intends to use the body if the ball is missed with the stick – but that’s another story.). The ‘fly in the ointment’ was It is only an offence if the ball hits the foot or body of a player and that player gains benefit which by 2005 had been change to It is not an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player, unless that player or their team benefits from this. The ‘gains benefit clause’, (I have underlined) as it became known, became a problem because many umpires insisted on interpreting any ball/body contact, particularly any foot/ball contact, no matter how caused, as of benefit to the team of the player hit (or were told to do so). This was easy to umpire and consistent, but it turned the intent of the Rule ‘on its head’. The ‘gained benefit’ clause effectively always ‘trumped’ – It is not automatically an offence if the ball hits the foot or body of a player – body ball contact was assumed always to be ‘of benefit’ and so an offence, and penalised unless opponents could play on with advantage.
In 2007 the HRB presumably in an attempt to clarify or reassert the intent of the Rule Guidance and redress the damage done by removing the word ‘intentionally‘ from the Rule, removed the ‘gains benefit’ clause – so that what then became Rule 9.11 read:-
Rules of Hockey 2007/8 9.11. Field players must not stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their body.
It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot,hand or body of a field player. The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball or if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way.
It is not an offence if the ball hits the hand holding the stick but would otherwise have hit the stick.”
So now reference to intention was restored (and expanded), but in Rule Guidance not the Rule, and reference to the gaining of an advantage or benefit from a ball/body contact that was not made voluntarily was removed.
Then something quite extraordinary happened. It was communicated to the public on the FIH website as follows:-
Rules of Hockey 2007 Official FIH explanation concerning ‘rule 9.11’ 07 Feb 2007 13:07 With the turn of the year, many more nations are now using the 2007/8 Rules of Hockey. The FIH is always keen to receive feedback on any rules changes or, for that matter, any existing rules. We receive this through various informal networks but also scan the web based discussion forums regularly.
An issue we have picked up through a few national associations, is uncertainty about rule 9.11: “field players must not stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their body”.
Rule 9.11 of the Rules of Hockey 2007/8 states:
“Field players must not stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their body. It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player. The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball or if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way. It is not an offence if the ball hits the hand holding the stick but would otherwise have hit the stick.”
Compared to the 2005/6 Rules, the note in italics has been changed in an endeavour to reinforce the intended interpretation of this rule. The following advice has been produced to clarify this interpretation so that the rule is applied consistently.
The 2005/6 Rules indicated that it was not an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player “unless that player or their team benefits from this”. However, as with other rules, this continues to be an offence if benefit is gained. Rule 9.11 should therefore continue to be applied taking into account any benefit gained by the player or their team.
This strange ‘explanation’ restored the version of the Guidance which existed prior to 2005 and reversed the deletion of the ‘gains benefit’ clause.
Why is what happened strange and extraordinary ? Because it was unconstitutional, contravening all the previous statements by the FIH Executive and the FIH Hockey Rules Board concerning the established procedure for amending Rule and directly challenged the sole authority of the HRB for the amendment of the Rules of Hockey – and because the gains benefit clause referred to was not in the Rules of Hockey 2007.
A month after the issue of the Rules of Hockey for 2007/8 and before there was time for any meaningful trial of the game sans the ‘gains benefit’ clause, we are informed. After much discussion especially with input from Peter von Reth(as Hockey Rules Board member and Chairman of the Umpiring Committee) and after agreement by Hockey Rules Board Chairman Wolfgang Rommel, the following guidance note has been prepared. The Chair of the HRB is an individual not himself the FIH Hockey Rules Board any more than Peter von Reth was – or any more than he as an individual was the the whole of FIH Umpiring Committee - and there was no indication that the announced reversal had been approved by the FIH Executive.
The procedure for amending the Rules of Hockey is easy enough to find on the FIH website under FAQ in the Rules section. http://www.fih.ch/en/sport/rules/faq What was done with the announcement on 7th February 2007 flouted every point of that procedure, particularly those mentioned in Q/A 18 – 20.
Just as bad was the inane justification for the interpretation that was presented as the “Official FIH explanation concerning ‘rule 9.11’”. The 2005/6 Rules indicated that it was not an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player “unless that player or their team benefits from this”. However, as with other rules, this continues to be an offence if benefit is gained.
That pretends that the deletion of “unless that player or their team benefits from this“. by the HRB after 2006 should be interpreted as if the words remained in the Rule Guidance. How could this have been, when they clearly did not ? It all seems to hang on the word ‘is‘ which was emphasized in bold text. This this continues to be an offence if benefit is gained. contrasted with not an offence unless that player or their team benefitsfrom this there is a change of syntax but I can’t see a change in meaning between these statements.
The Hockey Rules Board, not surprisingly, were not it seems impressed by the circumvention of an amendment to the wording of the Rule Guidance they had authorised only a month previously, but no immediate action was taken, so this ‘Official explanation ‘ was accepted as applying to the Rules of Hockey 2007-9. Subsequent Committee meetings of the Members of the HRB however declined to ratify the unconstitutional ‘consultation’ with their Chairman in Feb 2007.
Rules of Hockey 2009-11 the clause “unless that player or their team benefits from this” was not restored to the embedded Rule Guidance
Rules of Hockey 2011-13 the clause “unless that player or their team benefits from this” was again not restored to the embedded Rule Guidance
Rules of Hockey 2013 -15 the clause “unless that player or their team benefits from this” has not been restored to the embedded Rule Guidance.
(I labour the time-span intentionally – six years compared with three weeks)
The ‘gains benefit’ clause of the body/ball contact Rule was and is therefore defunct following the expiration of 2007-9 Rules of Hockey and until such time the FIH Rules Committee (the renamed HRB) choose to restore it – if they do. Naturally the Umpiring Committee did not and do not accept this, and umpires are still being coached as if the ‘gains benefit’ clause is and always has remained part of the text of Rule 9.11.
There should of course be a ‘gained unfair benefit’ clause – both parties are at fault – but it should be an amended version, not the ‘catch all’ previously given. There is a need for penalty when a goal is directly prevented with a ball/body contact by a defending field-player and there has been no offence by a member of the the attacking team. There is also a case for calling an offence when there is an accidental body/ball contact by a player in possession of the ball in the opponent’s circle, when possession is retained or some other benefit, such as a pass to a team-mate, accrues, but no more than that is required.
The introduction of the field hockey self pass threw up some issues during the experimental stage which were coped with on the spot during the Experiment Period by the introduction of what was seen to be a ‘common sense interpretation’ – an ‘interpretation’ which restricted the actions of any opponent who was with 5m of the ball when a self pass was taken.
I strongly disagree that such restrictions are an appropriate way of dealing with retreating defenders ‘caught’ within 5m of the ball when a self-pass is taken – but I have written about that elsewhere in this blog – this article is about the use by umpires of the advice given in the Umpire Manager’s Briefings for Umpires at FIH Tournaments (i.e International level hockey) to introduce Rule Guidance and even new Rule to the Rules of Hockey as ‘interpretation’.
I use here the briefing notes about the Free-Hit (which I always refer to as a free or a free-ball because the penalty is not necessarily executed with a hit) from the UMB as a recent example of this practice.
The Umpire Manager’s briefing for Umpires.
Free Hits
•All opponents must be at least 5 metres from the ball •For free hits awarded to the attack within their attacking 23 metre area -all players must be at least 5 metres from the ball
In all situations -if taken quickly and a player is within 5 metres of the ball but is not playing, attempting to play the ball or influencing play, the taking of the free hit does not need to be delayed; this same player can play, attempt to play the ball or try to influence play, once the ball has travelled 5 metres–be consistent in your judgment of this.
•Attacking free hits awarded within 5 metres of the circle are taken back to the nearest point 5 metres from the circle.
. The Rules of Hockey Rule 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.
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
.
It will be noted that part of the advice given in the UMB has been highlighted (as it is in the current publication) and the highlighted part is a variation of the Rule Guidance given in the Rules of Hockey. In fact it is more than that because the Guidance in the Rules of Hockey is about action thatcould delaythe taking of a free, but – because of the given Guidance – need not do so. The highlighted part (in the UMB) is about action that takes place after the free has been taken, an entirely different context. It perhaps raises the strange question “Is a free not taken until the taker has moved 5m with the ball – or alternatively, moved the ball 5m?” – This late revision has not been properly thought through.
The only legitimate ways to vary the Rules of Hockey, which includes the embedded Guidance, are by amendment to the published Rules of Hockey, which is a bi-annual publication, or by the issue of Rule Variation in FIH Tournament Regulations. The letter below explains when and where such variation may be used.
. Extract from the above FIH document FIH Tournament Regulations deal with the management and presentation of FIH world-level competitions. To enhance the profile of these competitions, Regulations are sometimes introduced which vary the Rules of Hockey. An example is that a Regulation currently specifies a green card indicates a two minute suspension whereas the Rules of Hockey specify a green card indicates a warning.
To encourage consistency in international hockey, such Regulations should be applied to all senior and under-21 international matches. However, the application of such Regulations to any other level of hockey is not endorsed by FIH. All other hockey should be played solely in accordance with the Rules of Hockey.
Appendix 9 contains the current Rules Variations to the Rules of Hockey.
There are no variations to Rule 13.2 Procedures for taking a free hit.
.
What the above means, when taken together, is that if the highlighted part of the Free Hits is regarded as Rule Guidance then the UMB is being used to circumvent correct procedure for the amendment of the Rules of Hockey, even at International level. In other words FIH Officials are not following the FIH’s own regulations. There is just no way that highlighted advice from the UMB could be said to legitimately apply to any hockey, never mind all hockey.
If this variation is to be incorporated into the Rules of Hockey (and I sincerely hope it will not be because I believe there are better alternatives) then that can only occur with the issue of the Rules of Hockey in 2013.(that didn’t happen, so now 2015) If it is to be introduced only at International level then a Rule Variation to that effect has to be included in the FIH Tournament Regulations – in the same way that the revised stick bow measuring device was added to them at the beginning of 2012. It’s odd that the rules Committee did not take the opportunity at that time to adjust the Guidance to the ‘Free Hit’ – maybe they don’t intend to.
The proposed changes to the Rules of Hockey for 2013-15 are now known, there is alteration to the free, it may now be directly lifted with any stroke except a hit (making the term Free Hit even more redundant) but there has been (sadly) no amendment to the procedure for taking or the 5m requirements connected with the self-pass.
.
That ‘Briefings’ follow Rule and Rule Guidance, not lead or dictate it, was last set out clearly in the Contents of the 2002 Rules of Hockey thus:- (my colour variations)
RULES’ INTERPRETATIONS
“In the past, in addition to the Rules Interpretations included in the Rules Book, briefing papers have occasionally been prepared primarily for umpires at international tournaments. However, we all play the game by the same set of Rules so interpretations in the Rules Book should be as complete as possible. Additional papers should be unnecessary. Accordingly, Appendix B (RulesInterpretations) in this 2002 edition has been significantly revised. It now incorporates the other briefing papers referred to above. At the same time the layout and some parts of the text have been simplified.”
******************************
The Rulebook underwent reformatting and a major rewrite in 2004 and much of the text was stripped out. It was not seen as necessary to repeat the above reminder of the ‘status’ of ‘briefings vis a vis the Rules. That is unfortunate, but it is clear from the FIH letter referred to above (which was issued in 2010) that ‘briefings’ follow the Rules of Hockey not the other way about. Briefings cannot conflict with Rules embedded Rule Guidance of the Rules of Hockey and should not be used to create new and different Rule Guidance; they are for general advice and for the clarification of existing Rule and Rule Guidance.
The oft heard lament that “ ‘they’ are always changing the Rules” is not in fact the case, if ‘they’ is the FIH Rules Committee. But if ‘they’ are Umpire Coaches or individual umpires or groups of umpires, and that seems to so, then there are grounds for complaint. There is certainly cause for concern, but umpires at club level cannot be held to be responsible for confusion, when an UMB published by the FIH introduces variation to the Rules of Hockey without following the proper procedures and complying with the guidelines published by the FIH – especially when umpires are told on the FIH website that the UMB contains useful guidance for all umpires. It is even more worrying to see senior umpires and others writing on forums about “the latest interpretations” to come from this or that Tournament, especially when such ‘interpretations’ are personal opinion and/or invention without any Rule backing at all. The most pernicious of these to date is the declaration that a shot which is clearly towards the goal cannot be dangerous. which appeared ‘out of the blue’ in television commentary at the 2008 Olympics and was heard to be said to players by an umpire during the Women’s World Cup in 2010.
It would be helpful when referring to ‘The FIH‘ while discussing publications and authority, to distinguish between The FIH Executive , The FIH Rules Committee, The FIH Equipment Committee, and The FIH Umpring Committee.
The FIH Rules Committee have sole authority, granted by The FIH Executive, for the content of the published Rules of Hockey; the FIH Umpiring Committee advise on the coaching of umpires according to the Rules of Hockey, and to that end, are responsible for the content the UMB. The procedures for changes for rule and Rule Guidance are further explained here:-
18. What is the procedure for developing a rules change?
ideas come from a variety of sources including players, coaches, umpires, the media, officials at events, and so on; ideas either come through National Associations and other groups or are referred directly to the HRB ideas are analysed and discussed in the Rules Committee usually over a period of time in two or three meetings; if the change is a relatively minor one, the Rules Committee may then be able to recommend a change; if a significant change is involved, further investigations will take place and a working group is set up to look at all the implications; significant changes are progressed through trials and mandatory experiments having received comment and advice, the Rules Committee will come to a conclusion; it then prepares a report about proposed rules changes for the Executive Board of the FIH (which will also have sanctioned related trials and mandatory experiments if they have taken place); the Executive Board will either agree the change or refer it back for further consideration by the Rules Committee; the Executive Board cannot directly amend a proposed change; it does not happen often, but a change might then have immediate effect; otherwise the change is incorporated in the next Rules Book.
19. When does a rules change become effective?
Officially the 1 January date applies to all international competitions but National Associations have discretion to decide the implementation date at national level.
20. Who is ultimately responsible for rules changes?
The Rules Committee comes to a conclusion about any changes it considers desirable and prepares a report for the Executive Board of the FIH. The Executive Board will either agree the change or refer it back for further consideration by the Rules Committee; the Executive Board cannot directly amend a proposed change. Thus the ultimate responsibility rests with the Executive Board.
Note: that not even the FIH Executive Board can directly amend a proposed change to the Rules of Hockey (Rule and Rule Guidance). It would therefore be impossible for the Umpiring Committee to amend Rule Guidance via a UMB even in ‘consultation’ with the Rules Committee (which seems to take the form of a chat with the Chairman of the Rules Committee in which s/he is told what the FIH Umpiring Committee is going to do).
The existence of Rule variation and new Rules in the European Hockey League, a Tournament for club teams, further complicates an already complicated situation. Someone needs to ‘gather the reins’.
Field Hockey: Dangerous play and ball/body contact myths
There are a number assertions for which no support in Rule or Rule Guidance is to be found but which are firmly held to be true by many participants. By umpires (because of coaching and observed ‘practice’) and by players (because of the way umpires apply the Rules). The latter is called ‘player expectation’ by umpires and is used as a justification for continuing to interpret and apply the Rule in the way they do. This process gives rise to ‘urban myths’. I am going to explore here those myths connected to the various Rules which are brought to bear when one player plays the ball at or into another, or a player ‘plays’ the ball with their body, intentionally or otherwise.
The myths
The assertions made in these ‘myths’ are generally corruption, misinterpretation or even inversion of Rules or the Rules Guidance. Occasionally they are pure invention, the creation of a myth based on the acceptance of a previous evolved myth called ‘practice’.
“All ball/body contacts should be penalised” (are offences). A contradiction of the Rule Guidance It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player. The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball or if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way.
. “Defenders have an obligation to defend their feet”(and should be penalised if they fail to do so even when contact is forced by an opponent). Here an assumption is made that any defender positioned to intercept the ball or positioning to tackle, who is hit with the ball, intended to be so hit (without the intent there would be no offence). There are no grounds for such a sweeping assumption, each incident must be judged separately on clear evidence of intent or willingness to be hit with the ball.
The speed with which the offence of forcing such contact (specifically an offence until 1st January 2011) has been turned into an offence by the player the ball is forced into, is astonishing. Such forcing is now supposed to be dealt with by “other Rules”so it should still be considered an offence – the problem is that the “other Rules” have not been identified by the Rules Committee, but dangerous play and intimidation are both possibilities where the forcing is powerfully done.
. “All ball/body contacts are of benefit or advantage to the player making the contact and disadvantage opponents”. Not only is this untrue it is irrelevant. Gaining benefit from a ball/body contact is not an offence and nor does it create an offence. The gaining of a benefit is mentioned in the Rules in relation to the playing of advantage when an offence has been committed. It is no longer used to create an offence from a breach of Rule (such as stopping the ball with the body) that was not an offence (because it was not intentional). Advantage : it is not necessary for every offence to be penalised when no benefit is gained by the offender ; unnecessary interruptions to the flow of the match cause undue delay and irritation”.
Note this advice to umpires is written in relation to offences, not unintentional breaches of Rule.
The only other reference to gaining benefit is in relation to time-wasting.
In the absence of an offence, like deliberate time-wasting, disadvantaging opponents is part of the game, being competitive – tackling, scoring goals etc. etc.
.
“Defenders who are positioned behind their sticks intend to play the ball with their body if they miss it with the stick. Without clear evidence of intent to use the body to play the ball i.e. of an offence, there is no reason a player should not be directly behind the stick when stopping the ball . Positioning the body behind the stick is a standard playing technique when it is not known to which side of the body the ball might be played and is not of itself evidence of intent to play the ball with the body – the assumption must be that if the player misses the ball with the stick when attempting to play it with the stick, such a miss is unintentional, and in such circumstances body position is not relevant (assuming the player is on her/his feet rather than lying or sitting or kneeling on the ground)
.
“A defender who is positioned on/in front of the goal-line when hit with the ball must be penalised with a penalty stroke” I have heard this one trotted out at Level One umpire induction courses on several occasions but it can be true only when there has been no prior dangerous play i.e. the shot is not dangerous and the player hit has clearly and intentionally played the ball with the body rather than the stick.
Certainty that there has been a deliberate offence is required before a penalty stroke may be awarded. The withdrawal of the ‘gains benefit’ clause has, unfortunately, removed the only ground on which the accidental prevention of a goal with the body could have been penalised.
.
“A defender positioned on the goal-line causes danger”. It is an illogical inversion of fact to suggest that the positioning of the defender is the cause of dangerous play. Such positioning can cause the play of the player propelling the ball to be dangerous but does not cause the play that is dangerous. If the ball is not propelled at (the position of) another player there can be no dangerously played ball. The distinction may seem subtle even though it isn’t, and language can used to bamboozle those not paying attention, but one might just as well say that the ground causes rain to make it wet, as suggest that defensive positioning prior to the ball being propelled causes dangerous play or is dangerous play.
What is true is that any player who raises the ball at another player at a velocity that could cause injury to that player has endangered that player i.e. has played the ball in a way that is dangerous to others.
.
“A defender who positions on the goal-line accepts any risk of so positioning” ( Is “asking for it”).
FIH statement from the Preface to the Rules of Hockey.
Responsibility and Liability Participants in hockey must be aware of the Rules of Hockey and of other information in this publication. They are expected to perform according to the Rules. Emphasis is placed on safety. Everyone involved in the game must act with consideration for the safety of others.
All players accept the risk of accidental injury but do not, and cannot be expected to, accept risks associated with any action by another participant that is a breach of the Rules.
For example Rule 13.3.1 (concerning second and subsequent shots at goal during a penalty corner – which is the same criteria as in open play) It is permitted to raise the ball to any height (while shooting at the goal) but this must not be dangerous. Defenders do not accept the risk (and nor should they be asked or expected to) that a ball will be intentionally propelled at their position (at them) in a dangerous or reckless way. They do accept the risk of, for example, accidental deflections, rebounds and miss-hits. It is disingenuous for a shooter to claim s/he was shooting at the goal and not at the player who was, prior to the shot, positioned in front of the goal on the line of the shot or moving towards the ball on that line. The responsibility to play without endangering another player applies, as does the liability for doing so.
.
“An ‘on target’ shot at the goal cannot be dangerous play.” This myth is (a very dangerous) invention. It seems to be based on (the unfortunate) fact that there is now no means of penalizing a shooter for reckless or dangerous play when a first shot at the goal at a penalty corner is propelled at an opponent at below knee height. Despite there being no height limit mentioned in Conduct of Play Rules, we have an exception to the possibility of ‘dangerously played ball’ just for the penalty corner shot – any defender struck with a shot which is below knee height must be, – penalised with another penalty corner, this is mandatory (so much for the subjective judgement of umpires). I consider this an aberration because a defender will be penalised even if obviously trying to play the ball with her/his stick, and irrespective of any recklessness or intimidation on the part of the shooter, this is contrary to other Rule.
. “Defenders have time to move out of the way of a ball that is propelled (raised) at them from more than 5m, so such a ball cannot be dangerous play.” An invention using inverted logic. 5m is the minimum distance within which a ball raised at an opponent above knee height will be considered dangerous, not a maximum distance, beyond which dangerous play is impossible. A ball propelled at another player could be considered dangerous play at any distance on the field of play, there is no upper limit.
.
“Defenders voluntarily play the ball with the body if they had time to move out of the way of a shot, don’t do so and are hit with the ball.“ There has to be clear intent to play the ball with the body. Voluntarily means willingly. A player is not willingly hit with the ball if s/he is trying to play it with the stick or is unsighted and unaware of the path of the ball or if attempting, but not succeeding, to take evasive action. To suggest that a player who could have moved out of the path of the ball (was physically able to do so) and therefore should have done so, has committed an offence if s/he doesn’t do so, is simply assuming intent whenever a player is hit with the ball. To suggest that there is a significant difference between intentionally and voluntarily in this context is ‘playing with semantics’ in an effort to make words mean what they are wanted to mean.
Another type of willingness to be hit with the ball might arise if a benefit was to be gained by being so hit but an umpire would have to be certain of the intent before penalising, there must be evidence not just an assumption.
‘Playing’ with semantics and ‘bending over back-wards’ to penalise a player hit with the ball just encourages reckless and dangerous play from any player propelling the ball towards/through opponents and achieves the opposite of the purpose of the Rule. Umpires should not be assisting either party to circumvent Rule or the intent of the Rule – even if that might make the game more interesting or spectacular; it is not the job of an umpire to provide entertainment.
.
“Whether or not a ball propelled at a player is a dangerously played ball depends on the level of play of the players, that is on the ability or skill of the players concerned.” This seems plausible until one considers what it is that makes any ball dangerous to any player (all players having approximately the same reactions times and all being of ‘flesh and bone’). It is the potential of the propelled ball to injure if the player is hit with it. That potential to injure and the degree of possible injury depend on the velocity of the ball and the height at which it is propelled. A player who is able to play a high ball that has been propelled at her/him has been as much endangered by that ball as a player who cannot. It is endangerment not actual injury that makes a ball dangerous. A ball that forces self-defence (rather than the taking of evasive action) to avoid injury, would be a better description of a dangerously played ball. The distance from the defending player the ball is propelled from is relevant only inasmuch as beyond a certain distanced, depending on ball velocity, it will be possible for the player to react to the ball (if s/he is aware of its path).
What goes to the root of the problem of the dealing with the ‘dangerously played ball’, is that it is a subjective judgement by the umpire. Objective criteria such as height and distance are used in only a very limited way, velocity is not mentioned at all. The plain fact is that a ball that is raised at high velocity at any player is potentially dangerous to that player, it forces her/him to respond to avoid injury, irrespective of his ability or skill to avoid or cope with the danger presented.
.
“An out-running defender at a penalty corner who runs towards the ball is a “suicide runner”, because s/he is“running down the barrel”, and should be penalised for dangerous play.”
Unless such a defending player clearly intends to use the body and not the stick to play the ball there is no offence. Terms such as ‘suicide runner’ should never have been used in this context. The first shot at goal during a penalty corner does not have to be raised or propelled from a set position, the scenario is presented is false. It is as if an out-runner were running into the path of a projectile, compulsorily fired, on a short fuse, from a static gun position – the truth is the shooter has choices and should not choose to endanger an opponent who is closing on the ball.
.
“A defender who closes on the ball when it is in the possession of an attacker who is taking a shot at the goal (or is about to) is guilty of dangerous play.”
Unless such a defending player is clearly intends to use the body and not the stick to play the ball, s/he has not committed an offence. A defender is entitled to defend and that includes closing on the ball and attempting to block the shot with the stick or tackle for the ball.
.
The relevant Rules.
9.8 Players must not play the ball dangerously or in a way which leads to dangerous play. A ball is considered dangerous when it causes legitimate evasive action by players.
9.9 Players must not intentionally raise the ball from a hit except for a shot at goal. Players are permitted to raise the ball with a flick or scoop provided it is not dangerous. A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous. If an opponent is clearly running into the shot or into the attacker without attempting to play the ball with their stick, they should be penalised for dangerous play.
9.11 Field players must not stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their body.
It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player. The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball or if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way.
13.3. l. For second and subsequent hits at the goal and for flicks, deflections and scoops, it is permitted to raise the ball to any height but this must not be dangerous. A defender who is clearly running into the shot or into the taker without attempting to play the ball with their stick must be penalised for dangerous play.
Otherwise,(that is if the defender is not attempting to play at the ball with their stick) if a defender is within five metres of the first shot at goal during the taking of a penalty corner and is struck by the ball below the knee, another penalty corner must be awarded or is struck on or above the knee in a normal stance, the shot is judged to be dangerous and a free hit must be awarded to the defending team.
The definition of a dangerously played ball is that it is “a ball that causes legitimate evasive action”. That statement alone should have been sufficient to prevent the creation of several myths, but it tells us only (and only in part) what a dangerously played ball is, not what other actions could constitute dangerous play, or even what ‘legitimate’ means (does it mean legal or genuine?) or what could possibly make any evasive action taken to avoid injury not legitimate.
These omissions have provided scope for ‘interpretation’ that have led to to various conclusions and this has been taken full advantage of. Why anyone would want to take such advantage to invert a previously accepted meaning of ‘dangerously played’ and even to remove the concept of the dangerously played ball from the game in certain circumstances, generally when what might be considered dangerous play is a shot at the goal, is outside the scope of this article.
The existence of the term ‘legitimate evasive action’ lends credence to the argument that evasive action can be legitimate in both meanings of the word i.e. necessary (or genuine) and also legal (or within the Rules).
Evasive action is not necessary, or indeed even a possibility, if a defending player is not positioned in the path of a ball that has been propelled by another player, such evasive action defines and is caused and is legitimized, by a dangerously played ball.
Being positioned in the defended goal or anywhere else (except the opponents’ goal) must be therefore be legal i.e. legitimate play, because otherwise no evasive action could ever be be legitimate and the term would not be used. Whether or not evasive action is legitimate i.e. necessary or genuine is a matter of umpire judgement, but it is also a player judgement, depending entirely on circumstances a player finds herself/ himself in. When the ball is raised high at a player at high velocity (and we here talking of a ball propelled at anything from 60 -100 mph), from within 14m, is difficult to see how an umpire could declare evasive action as unnecessary by any player at any level. (‘High’, in terms of height, could usefully be defined as an objective criteria).
It is not illegal for a defender to defend the goal either by staying in the goal on the goal-line or in front of the goal-line, nor is illegal for a defender to close down on an attacker about to shoot to try to intercept the ball with the stick or tackle for the ball with the stick, the goal could not be defended if a defender was not allowed to be in or to defend in the area between a shooter and the goal.
Legitimate evasive action is not in fact a sufficient description of a dangerously played ball when the ball is propelled at another player in a way that could endanger them, because evasive action is not always successful and because defenders may also be endangered when they have not taken or even attempted to take evasive action, either because they were physically unable to do so (lack of time to react) or because they were unaware that evasive action might be necessary. Either could be the case if a defending player was unsighted at the time the ball was propelled in their direction. It is also more than possible (very likely) that an umpire would not know if a defending player was unsighted when the ball was propelled in their direction.
I know it ‘sucks’ but the fact that it is against the Rules to propel the ball at another player in a way that endangers them, makes it much more difficult to score a goal than it would otherwise be. And playing the ball at or into the legs or feet of an opponent is not a legitimate way to ‘win’ a free or a penalty corner – in fact penalties against opponents are not (or should not be) ‘won’ (‘manufactured’) intentionally at all – passing and dribbling skills have to be developed and then used in a legitimate way.
.
Link to Index of Ruleshttp://wp.me/p3tNmd-3
I would like to make some observations about a Internet field hockey forum post :- (which is now pinned to the top of the Umpiring Section of that forum as an example of moderation in debate)
But first, here it is as written in full.
Dangerous shot on goal.
Every internet forum has had these debates, and the strong opinions have led to a deal of nastiness.
There are two extreme positions: – if it is a shot, it cannot be dangerous (any danger is the defender’s fault for being there); – the danger rules are being ignored, with too many dangerous shots allowed as goals, or injured defenders penalised with a PS.
On the occasions when the flame wars have subsidied enough to let reasonable contributors reach a consensus, that consensus has been:
- it all depends on the shot, the speed and distances involved, the skill-level of defenders and attacker, the state of play, the importance of the competition, and many other factors known only to those who were there… – at the highest levels of hockey, very little is judged as dangerous, on the assumption that defenders have the skill to take on almost any shot – … but umpires might still follow the guidance to Rules 9.9 and 13.3L, that a shot striking someone within 5 metres above the knee, can be considered dangerous – at beginning and social levels of hockey, inexperienced players must not be left feeling unsafe, and wild shots should be penalised to encourage attackers to care for safety – … so umpires can reasonably extend the ‘within 5′ to 7, 10, or even 14, and sometimes rule it ‘dangerous’ even if the ball misses everyone – at the majority of hockey in-between, it is back to the umpire’s judgement, based on experience, what they’ve read on the Internet, and discussions in the bar – … so after a game with such a decision, you’ll have this debate with a fellow umpire and a couple of other players .
******************************
I seems to be entirely reasonable doesn’t it? In fact it is a quite skilfully put together mix of truth, opinion, falsehood and contradiction, which ends with a picture of umpires and players happily chatting at the bar, an image that provides the necessary ‘feel good’ factor and general agreement of ‘everyone’ the author wants to impart.
A second look.
Every internet forum has had these debates, and the strong opinions have led to a deal of nastiness.
True, I have been on the receiving end of a great deal of this ‘nastiness’.
There are two extreme positions:
This is an extreme position.
- if it is a shot, it cannot be dangerous (any danger is the defender’s fault for being there);
An example from the 2010 WWC
The following statement is not an extreme position, it is the truth.
- the danger rules are being ignored, with too many dangerous shots allowed as goals, or injured defenders penalised with a PS.
Penalty stoke awarded
This one was ‘only’ a penalty corner. I have no idea what offence the defender was supposed to have committed.
The following sentence give the impression that reasonable contributors hold neither of the views given above – false – and that there is a consensus of opinion among reasonable people, (which by definition excludes those who hold the given ‘extreme’ views ) – this too is a false statement. On the occasions when the flame wars have subsided enough to let reasonable contributors reach a consensus, that consensus has been:
- it(whether or not a ball has been played dangerously) – all depends on the shot, the speed and distances involved, the skill-level of defenders and attacker, the state of play, the importance of the competition, and many other factors known only to those who were there… Nice mix, part true, part false, part irrelevant – and some parts missing. A closer examination:-
- it all depends on the shot, the speed and distances involved.That’s a promising start but it needed to be more precise. ‘It’ depends on the height of the shot, the speed (velocity) of it, the distance away from a player from which it was propelled, and, most importantly if it was at a player and forced self-defence.
-the skill-level of defenders and attacker, the state of play, the importance of the competition,All irrelevant as to whether or not a ball has been propelled in a dangerous way – has endangered a player.
- and many other factors known only to those who were there.
“the shot, the speed and distances involved” are also factors known only to those who ‘were there’. Other factors, such as obstruction, impeding, intimidation, sight-blocking, nature of stoke (forehand edge hit for example), can all be mentioned in written guidance for players and umpires, as acts that can lead to a dangerously played shot: it is not necessary to “be there” to know the kinds of actions that are prohibited and therefore should be watched for (umpire) or not intentionally carried out (players). For prevention prior knowledge of these things by players and coaches is essential – this is most consistently provided by written guidance in the issued rulebook , not after the event (of dangerous play) post-match in a bar, although such discussions can be helpful in individual cases.
- at the highest levels of hockey, very little is judged as dangerous, on the assumption that defenders have the skill to take on almost any shot. The near extreme view but only because it does not say “no shot” but “ very little” without explanation of the “very little” that is judged dangerous ( I think it is a shot that is going wide of the goal that may be judged dangerous – the same shot on target not so – a situation which I don’t understand and have been unable to obtain a logical explanation for), and the reason given is here different: no longer the outrageous “the defender’s fault for being there” which is usually offered(the defender cannot be called ‘at fault’ for attempting to defend and it is only possible to defend a shot at the goal from a position between the goal and the shooter), but the seemingly reasonable “on the assumption that defenders have the skill to take on almost any shot” ; the “almost” not expanded upon and what would be considered beyond the skill of players of the highest level not explained. Note that the attackers are not expected to have the skill to avoid propelling the ball high at a defender or to accept responsibility for doing so.
The absurdity of the assumption made about the skill of a defender can be demonstrated with an analogy:-
A motorist drives his car through a pedestrian-crossing while there is a pedestrian in his path and when prosecuted for dangerous driving defends doing so by claiming that the pedestrian, who was already on the crossing as he approached, should not have been there because he knew car drivers used the road. Not a defence. His next line is that the pedestrian knew that he was in a position where he could be hit by a car and also had or should have had the skill to jump out of the path of his car and avoid injury and was therefore responsible for his injury – caused it – : not a defence.
Here is an an example of what I consider to be the taking of legitimate evasive action at the highest level, the Gold Medal match of the Olympic Games. The umpire awarded a goal, I have no idea why; the shot was clearly made directly at the position of the ‘post player’ at about head height and endangered that player.
The prior positioning of a defender is reason not to propel the ball high (which needs defining) at that position i.e. at her/him but to take an alternative action. The positioning of a defender in front of the target goal does not indicate acceptance of an irresponsible – reckless – and/or dangerous action by an attacker, i.e. illegal actions. The defender accepts, as all players do, the possibility of injury because of accidental actions, miss-hits or deflections for example, but such accidental actions may still be penalised as dangerous.
The skill of the defender is irrelevant, what is relevant is the propensity of the ball to injure the player (any player) it is propelled at – which depends on the velocity, the height and also the distance from the player from which the ball is propelled – that in turn forces a player to self defence, either by trying to evade the ball to avoid injury or trying to play it with the stick, (success in either is irrelevant, the ball is still played at her/him in a dangerous way). The forcing of self-defence is critical in the judgement of a dangerously played ball – it actuall defines it – but it was omitted in the original post.
- … but umpires might still follow the guidance to Rules 9.9 and 13.3L, that a shot striking someone within 5 metres above the knee, can be considered dangerous
Guidance to Rule 9.9 reads “is considered dangerous” not “can be” (the FIH Rules Committee have declared such a stroke to be dangerous) and there is no height mentioned – so presumably a ball propelled at any height could be considered dangerous – it would certainly be incorrect to say that a ball propelled at a player below knee height cannot be dangerous. Nor is there any suggestion within the Rules that a player who is beyond 5m of the ball cannot be endangered by the way in which the ball is played. Guidance to 13.3.l, specific to the penalty corner, does not cancel out the guidance to Rule 9.9 – although the presence of both obviously causes some confusion.
Guidance Rule 9.9. A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous.
- at beginning and social levels of hockey, inexperienced players must not be left feeling unsafe, and wild shots should be penalised to encourage attackers to care for safety.True, the same can be said of all levels of hockey.
- … so umpires can reasonably extend the ‘within 5′ to 7, 10, or even 14, and sometimes rule it ‘dangerous’ even if the ball misses everyone.True, think, as an extreme example, of a shot taken on the volley at a falling ball near the edge of a crowded circle.
- at the majority of hockey in-between, it is back to the umpire’s judgement, based on experience, what they’ve read on the Internet, and discussions in the bar
- … so after a game with such a decision, you’ll have this debate with a fellow umpire and a couple of other players .
Note, no mention of the Rules of Hockey but in the absence of any guidance but that given to Rule 9.9., and with the definition of a dangerously played ball being “a ball that causes legitimate evasive action” , when umpires often interpret evasive action from players who are known to be skilled as an attempted ‘con’, the present rules relating to a dangerously played ball are hopelessly inadequate and players and coaches will seek explanation.
We are left with the subjective judgement of umpires, and that too is often hopelessly inadequate for the proper and fair protection of defending players facing an attacker in possession of the ball, especially when the umpire subscribes to the first of the “two extreme positions” – as many do.
Example: current FIH Umpires have stated on Internet hockey forums that defenders in front of the goal causes danger by their positioning, and position so with the intention of using their body to play the ball if they miss it with the stick. It is not known on what evidence or authority these assumptions are based. There is also absurdity in the claim: when there are two ‘post players’ positioned during a penalty corner are both of them causing danger at the same time, when they are more than 3m apart or is it only the one the ball is propelled at who is to blame?
Example of practice: The umpire in the following clip informs a defender in a match during the 2010 Women’s World Cup that an on-target shot at the goal could not be dangerous, and awarded a penalty corner against the defender (for being hit?) The shot, a raised edge hit from about 5m, struck the defender on the thigh.
Such umpires (and those who coach them) are dangerous to players because of these (extreme) views,they do nothing to discourage the dangerously played ball – in fact they encourage it. We can only speculate about what would have followed if during the penalty corner the umpire insisted on awarding, despite the ‘petulant’ protests of the Spanish players that the initial shot was dangerous, a defender had been injured, as Irewin of Cookstown was (fractured skull), in the EHL game shown above.
It is obvious that the dangerously played shot can no longer remain entirely a subjective decision – that is entirely the opinion of an umpire without reference to any objective criteria, if the ball is propelled at another player from more than 5m. - it all depends on the shot, the speed and distances involved and so it should but this statement is not acted upon, there is no means of making these judgements. It’s not difficult: when the ball is propelled high at a player we have one objective judgement “at a player”; added to that we could have a subjective judgement, but one to which the player defending can contribute, “at a velocity that could injure” – the defender then takes the decision to attempt to play or evade the ball. (Players are presently forced to attempt to play at the ball when a shot at the goal is made ‘through’ them, because evasion just leads to the award of a goal). Then we could have another objective judgement, height. I suggest “at above elbow height”; and finally, ‘distance’, another objective judgement.
Velocity and distance will together determine ‘time to react’ in a defensive way. Velocity and height will together determine the nature of the danger, the degree of injury that could be inflicted.
A high velocity ball propelled at a player at above elbow height would then be considered dangerous play – even if it was a shot at the goal from within the circle.
Within a day of my writing the above article someone on the hockey forum from which the original comment was taken, posted this:-
” There are already posts in other places discussing how this is completely untrue and unworkable and that the option they put forward is the only workable option.”
Which illustrates the problems we have with interpretation and opinion and bias. I have suggested an alternative approach: I did not say it was the only possible one or that the original post was completely untrue – but that it was false or mistaken in parts. I noted where it was true and where false.
It is this kind of biased, untruthful and irresponsible response (from an umpire who has previously declared he would award a penalty stroke against a player hit on the head while defending the goal on the goal-line) that leads to polarization of opinion instead of sensible debate and compromise – not that player safety should ever be compromised by the opinions of an umpire .
What criteria should be used to describe a dangerous shot is certainly open to further discussion: once it has been accepted that the present criteria – subjective judgement alone - is inadequate, which it obviously is if these decisions are prejudged i.e. are not in fact subjective at all, but predetermined irrespective of the facts in each case. Sensible discussion will however not take place.
The link below is to a typical example of an attempt (in 2010) to discuss dangerous play in connection shots raised at a penalty corner that hit a defender at head height. There are two examples given from the same tournament. It is clear from the replies given that a high shot going wide of the goal that hits a defender will be considered dangerous – but a shot that is on target will not be. No reasons for this difference of interpretation are offered, it just seems to be taken for granted. This suggests that umpires consider it an illegitimate action for a defender to defend the goal from in front of the goal or as they would put it “the defender accepts the risks”. But intentionally raising shot at – through – an opponent will endanger that opponent and is dangerous play, which is contrary to Rule, and so not an accepted risk. When the ball is intentionally raised at a player in a way that forces self-defence that player is entitled to expect the umpire to penalise the player who raises the ball at him.
Few Internet hockey forum threads have got much further than that one and there have probably been around fifty attempts since 2006 on that particular forum to explore the issue. Umpire coaches and senior umpires simply refuse either to engage at all or to give a reasonable answer to the questions raised. Those that do respond often do so just in order to prevent any discussion – as is the case in the example above. The respondent to the second incident mentioned in the thread was by the umpire involved (who also tried to ‘kill’ the topic with her first post). She acknowledges that she was wrong to award a penalty corner after a shot that was going wide of the goal hit a defender at head height, but there is no doubt at all that she would have awarded a penalty stroke if the shot had been ‘on target’ and the defender hit in the same way. Presumably the defender and not the attacker would have been seen in that case to have caused the dangerous play.
Following the death of Lizze Watkins, in Australia in May 2012, there was a call for provision for the wearing of helmets for field-hockey playing from a doctor in Perth, whose daughter plays hockey, reported in a newspaper article. The doctor said she saw and treated many hockey related head injuries from ball contacts. She also said she had written to the hockey authorities many time suggesting Rule change but was just ignored. An ill mannered reply was made to her reported comments from a hockey player. I am not in favour of the introduction of helmets for field players in hockey (I think they would lead to an even more cavalier attitude to dangerous play – as the introduction of face masks for penalty corners has) but I agree there needs to be rule change – so I replied to his comment pointing out the danger of the present interpretation in regard to the raised shot at goal, especially the drag-flick at a penalty corner. This is what he wrote in reply.
Martin Conlon penalty corners are another story all together I believe in the higher grades the posties should have to wear a mask and with saying that everyone that plays hockey know the risk and still choose to put themselves in the line of fire. Rules state everything goes in the D IF you are having a direct shot at goal if you choose to stand there knowing full well that’s the rule they are there at their own risk. It’s not a wimpy sport if you can’t deal with it don’t play it and stay at home and knit.
Rules state everything goes in the D. This guy does not know the Rules and should not be allowed to play until he has demonstrated that he does. The scary thing is I have in the past received similar comments on this subject from practicing umpires, and even those coaching novice umpires: dangerously clueless people who should not be entrusted with overseeing a hockey match.
The FIH Rules Advisory Panel for field hockey was formed in 1993 and mentioned in the Preface to Rules of Hockey 1998, as a body that would oversee Rules Trials.
The Future : Over the years, the Hockey Rules Board (HRB) explored changes to the Rules through the use of Experimental Rules. We have now reached the stage when it is considered appropriate to undertake a number of Trials of possible new Rules before they are formally introduced as Mandatory Experiments. Such an approach will enable a proper evaluation of some quite radical changes.The Trials, which National Associations will be invited to undertake, will be conducted by the Rules Advisory Panel (RAP).Full details of these ideas have been sent to National Associations. If will be their decision whether the Trials take place. The main areas for consideration include the penalty corner, larger goals, direct hits into the circle from free hits, ball not being stopped before a shot at goal during the penalty corner and having a broken line 5 metresoutside the circle. Opinions on these and related activities should be sent to Roger Webb, Co-ordinator of the Rules Advisory Panel.
Where the suggested rules for trial had come from and who besides Roger Webb was involved in the RAP remained unclear, but this umpire coaching document authored by John Gawley has been confirmed by Roger Webb to reflect the thinking of the RAP .
It is the most conflicted document written about the application of the rules of hockey that I have read. It also appears, in part, to form the basis of much of the current muddled ‘interpretation’ of defensive actions and the dangerously played ball. Some statements in it are the near or direct opposite of others so it reads like a list of alternative approaches rather than a coaching document or advice to umpires.
As far as I have been able I have highlighted like statements in one colour and grouped conflicting statements in another – one group has been generally ignored the other adopted. Which is seen as ‘positive’ for the game and which ‘negative’ will depend on the predisposition of the reader.
Some of the rules and guidance mentioned in the document have since been deleted, I have indicated this in green italic within the text on the first occasion only that each such rule or guidance is referred to. My comments have also been inserted in green italic.
The document has been very selectively used by umpire coaches. The reader will recognise the parts that are current application or ‘interpretation’. The result of this selection has been the development since of some very ‘slanted’ interpretation of player actions and of the written rules and guidance – which has in turn led, it appears, to the deletion of safety rules which were previously thought to be important.
*************
The Lifted Ball
2001
By John Gawley. Level 3 Umpire Coach.
No player should ever be put into a position of self-defence against a ball put into the air at any height, be it 15 or 50 centimetres. (now generally ignored when the defending player is more than 5m from the ball and always ignored when a shot at goal is made)
A player having to face a ball approaching in the air should have a clear view of the full flight of that ball and also have time either to move out of its way, or to play or attempt to play it in a legitimate and safe manner.(ignored)
So far as Goalkeepers are concerned, they deliberately put themselves “into the firing line” but are equipped to do so. Nevertheless, even they can be forced into self-protection rather than protection of their goal by dangerously-raised balls. (ignored)
INTENTIONAL LIFT
- Lift at an Opponent
If the ball is intentionally put into the air at an opponent at any height anywhere on the pitch in contravention of Rule 13.1.1 f: (Rules numbers changed in subsequent years, Conduct of Play became Rule 9)
(“Players shall not play the ball dangerously or in such a way as to be likely to lead to dangerous play”) and Rule 13.1.3b (“Players shall not intentionally raise the ball so that it lands directly in the circle” ( this Rule later deleted) the player who raises the ball is in breach of the Rule.
(There was also aRule 13.1.3dA player shall not raise the ball at another playerextant in 2001, which was deleted after 2003. Gawley, strangely, neglected to mention it here)
Furthermore, the shot may be dangerous or likely to lead to danger. Such a shot may legitimately be defended by the hand in accordance with Rule 13.1.2 a. (“Players shall not stop or catch the ball with the hand. There is nothing to prevent players using their hands to protect themselves from dangerously-raised balls.” (this guidance was later deleted)) That statement stands despite the fact that Rule 13.1.3 a (“Players shall not intentionally raise the ball from a hit except for a shot at goal”.) permits a shot at goal to be made at any height. A raised shot has to be made at goal, not deliberately at a defender standing either in goal or between the goal and the striker.
- Tackling Lift
There is nothing in the Rules to prevent any player in possession of the ball from lifting it over the stick of an opponent to resist a tackle, be it in the outfield, in the circle, or entering the circle, provided that the condition of Rule 13.1.3 b (“Players shall not intentionally raise the ball so that it lands directly in the circle.”) (replaced with a prohibition on intentionally raising the ball with a hit except when making a shot at the goal) is met. The last point is important: where the ball is lifted in such a manner over an opponent’s stick and enters the circle while still in the air, there is NO offence.
- Tactical Lift
When a ball is deliberately raised in a legitimate manner anywhere on the pitch the umpire should decide upon its merits as advised in the Rules Interpretations of the Rule Book. This form of play is used for tactical purposes, often to reverse the opposing defence. In general, it is fair to say that players who raise the ball in this manner, usually by scooping, consciously try to avoid danger to anyone in the flight path of the ball. The umpire is therefore seeking reasons why such a raised ball SHOULD be penalised. A player receiving a dropping ball should be given time and space in which safely to do so without real or threatened interference from an opponent. (Rule 13.1.3 c “Players shall not approach within 5 metres of a player receiving a falling aerial ball until it has been played and is on the ground.”) (this is very loosely applied, now opponents approach without penalty to within 5m of the receiving player as soon as the ball is played) Note that the ball, having been intentionally lifted in this way, may not fall into the circle.(no longer applicable, flicks and scoops may be played into the circle)
ACCIDENTAL LIFT
On the other hand, the ball is often raised accidentally, usually by a stick interfering with the flight of the ball, rather than by any deliberate attempt to play it.(????) In such circumstances, the ball is likely to fly upwards in an unpredictable trajectory, thus being both dangerous in itself and likely to cause danger. A ball hit some 15 cm in the air into a crowded circle is an example. The Umpire, therefore, is likely to be seeking reasons why this raised ball should NOT be penalised but should wait to determine whether this actual danger.. (? unfinished)
Interpretation
No matter where on the field the ball is raised, and no matter what the circumstances of the lift, the umpire must always judge whether a player has been genuinely endangered in any of the ways described. Umpires should be on their guard against players who simulate ducking out of the way of raised balls simply to try to “con” them into thinking that such a ball is dangerous. Similarly, umpires should not be misled by defenders, often in goal, who allow themselves to be hit by the ball so as to be able to claim that the shot was dangerous.(apparently now adopted as the standard thinking about ‘Legitimate evasive action)The same standards of judgement must be applied wherever and whenever the ball is raised. It is therefore important that umpires recognise, and agree before each game according to the level and playing conditions of that game, what is the likely distance inside which those particular players are likely to have to defend their own persons instead of playing the ball properly.(ignored if player more than 5m from ball) Other factors need to be considered for raised shots at goal, however.
RAISED SHOTS AT GOAL IN OPEN PLAY
The goal is there to be shot at. The goalkeeper is well-protected and has no grounds for protest about high shots at goal. So far as any other defenders are concerned, if they stand in the goal to defend high shots, they must accept the penalty if the ball hits them contrary to Rule 13.1.2 b (“Players shall not intentionally stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their bodies.”). They can be said, perhaps, to have arrogated to themselves the duty of goalkeeper without having goalkeeper’s privileges. High shots include hits, flicks and scoops.(note the assumption made that a defender who is hit with the ball had the intention to be so hit)Having said this, it must nevertheless be remembered that no player should ever be put to the necessity of self-defence, and that includes goalkeepers. Although properly protected, goalkeepers can still be injured by balls projected at them from so short a range and in such a manner that they are unable to adopt a naturally protective posture. In high level games, with physically fit, young, skilled players, it is possible that the minimum safe distance for a rising shot is about (than)? 3 metres. In less skilled games, that distance will probably be not less than 9 metres and could be more (reaction times have nothing to do with skill, Gawley confuses anticipation with reaction) . In all cases, the distances may increase dependent on other circumstances, not least whether the players defending the goal have a clear view of the whole flight of the ball from the moment that it is first propelled upwards. Judgement of what is dangerous must necessarily be subjective (That is not entirely true: height and distance are objective criteria which are actual and readily estimated by eye to a high degree of accuracy, and are thus suitable for the making of consistent decisions regarding a dangerously played ball . Subjective judgements are matters of opinion rather than of measurement e.g. “a ball velocity that could cause injury”, which is not a difficult subjective judgement or, where it is relevant, “intent” , which may be very difficult to discern. Fortunately intent where there is dangerous play is irrelevant ). Perhaps the soundest advice for the umpire is to consider that any raised ball is dangerous unless proved otherwise.In general, it is probably fair to say that a rising ball that would not be permitted on the grounds of safety in the outfield should not be permitted, for the same reasons, in the circle, whether for a shot at goal or, indeed, for clearing a shot at goal – a goalkeeper’s kick, for example. The exception is that the intentionally raised hit is permitted in the circle for a shot at goal; otherwise the same parameters apply. Note, however, that this advice is concerned mainly with high shots in OPEN PLAY. In these circumstances, there are usually few players in the circle and, as often as not, the shot is made in a one-on-one situation (this may have been true before the Off-side Rule was abolished but is no longer) . During Penalty Corners, where numbers of players are required by the Rules to operate within the circle, other considerations apply, all concerned primarily with Safety.
Summary
During open play, rising shots at goal are permitted provided the defending players have time to defend the goal rather than themselves. No player should EVER be permitted to raise the ball, anywhere on the pitch, that is dangerous to other players. If defenders other than goalkeepers dressed in protective clothing or helmeted “kicking backs” (who have goalkeepers’ privileges in the circle), elect to defend their goal, then a shot that would have been permitted against a fully-equipped goalkeeper should be permitted against them. And if they stop or play the ball with their bodies or sticks above their shoulders (above shoulder defending of a shot at the goal was not permitted in 2001), they should be penalisedunless they were endangered. ( it is difficult to see how a lifted shot of high velocity would not endanger the player it was lifted at- it would certainly force the defending player to either self-defence or evasive action - which defines a dangerously played ball)
RAISED SHOTS AT GOAL AT PENALTY CORNERS AND FROM CORNERS
- Players in the Circle
The Penalty Corner demands a maximum of 5 defenders behind their back or goal-line and places no limit on the number of attackers round the circle, though in practice the attackers usually number six or seven. There can thus be twelve or so players in the circle during the conduct of a Penalty Corner. For a Corner, and for other forms of Hit-in and Free Hit to the attackers where there has been a delay in play so as to allow players to gather in and near the circle, there is no limit to the numbers of players who may be in the circle. Eighteen players were counted on one occasion. Hits to the attack from the area of corner flags (corners, hits-in & free hits) are rightfully taken in open play, They are considered here with the Penalty Corner as likely to cause crowding within the circle. It can thus be seen that any ball raised into or within the circle in such circumstances has a great potential for danger. Such crowding underlines the need for umpires to judge whether players in the flight path of a raised ball have time properly to react to it. This is not to say that all raised balls in the circle are dangerous, nor that balls raised unintentionally into the circle are necessarily dangerous, but merely to indicate the potential for danger and hence the need for acute awareness and observation by the umpire.
- Penalty Corner
The defenders (including the Goalkeeper) are prohibited from deliberately raising the ball from a hit within the circle, or indeed outside it – Rule 13.1.3 a applies. The attackers, however, MAY deliberately raise the ball from a hit or other type of shot in the circle, but only for a shot at goal – not for a hit across the circle, for example. The one caveat to this permission is that the FIRST hit at goal at a Penalty Corner must comply with Rule 15.2 l (“If the first shot at goal is a hit, the ball must cross the goal-line at a height of not more than 460m (the height of the backboard) for a goal to be scored, unless it touches the stick or body of a defender.” (since amended)
Generally, the ball that is raised in the circle has a possible element of danger. But remember that any player may raise the ball over the stick of an opponent to resist a tackle. Once the first hit at goal in a Penalty Corner has been made, all subsequent hits may be at any height consonant with safety, as already described. However, still with the Penalty Corner, any other stroke to raise the ball may be made at any time, with no limit being placed on the height of the ball at any part of its flight. The only caveat on these forms of shot – usually scoops or flicks – is that of safety. And let us remember that the Penalty Corner Rule – specifically those sections applying to the first hit and the need first to stop the ball on the ground (no longer applicable) – ceases to apply if the ball goes beyond 5metres from the circle before re-entering it (Rule 15.2 (“If the ball travels more than 5metres from the circle, the penalty corner rules no longer apply”).
- The Scooped Ball
The ball that is flicked or scooped from near the inside edge of the circle so that it goes high over all heads and falls so that it will enter the goal just below the crossbar is not very likely to be dangerous when falling; the player(s) in the goal-mouth will see the ball raised, will see it during its flight, and will have time to decide how to defend the falling ball. They therefore have no excuse for playing the ball with their sticks whilst it is above their shoulders, for hitting the ball away in a dangerous manner, nor for using any part of their body to stop the ball. Only if the flick or scoop is at very short range, or if there are players in the line of sight between striker and goal, might the striker be penalised, and then usually only if the ball is still rising or if it is so low throughout its flight as to be obscured, for the receiver, by other players. Umpires should remember that the same conditions for dealing with a dropping ball apply for shots at goal as elsewhere on the pitch i.e. the player receiving the ball must be given time and space (5metres) in which to receive it safely.
- The Rising Shot
Having accepted the caveats noted above for the Penalty Corner, let us broaden thought to embrace the crowded circle. The same considerations previously mentioned still apply, i.e. the goal is there to be shot at, and defenders who arrogate to themselves the duty of goalkeeper must accept the penalty if they prevent a goal other than legitimately with their sticks.(note that the ‘perhaps’ before ‘arrogate’ has already disappeared from this (sic) new idea [of undetermined origin] – and, as above, positioning in the goal is seen, incorrectly, as an intention to use the body to play the ball) But, given the crowding already discussed, it is even more important that players defending any raised ball, regardless of its height, should have a clear view of the ball’s trajectory and have time either to remove themselves from its path or to play or try to play the ball legitimately. If they do not have such time, the ball raised at them must be considered dangerous and penalised immediately(ignored). But umpires should be on their guard against players who deliberately allow themselves to be hit by the ball so as to be able to claim that the lift was dangerous. It is the rising ball that is most likely to cause most danger, either because it can strike a player’s body, where its energy is likely to be absorbed, or because it can touch part of a stick and fly off unpredictably, with no loss of energy, to hit another player.
Summary
When the circle is crowded, such as at Penalty Corners and for hits from near the corner flag areas, there is a high potential for danger from any raised ball. Umpires must be alert to the risks involved but should not over-react merely because the ball is in the air or the body of a defender in the goal is struck by the ball. They should instead consider whether players have the necessary time and distance to avoid physical contact with the raised ball in favour of playing or attempting to play it legitimately, and not flinch from applying the appropriate penalty if avoiding action could have been taken. (There is some muddled thinking in that statement, as legitimate avoiding action – legitimate evasive action – defines a dangerously played ball ) The necessity for the first HIT at goal at a Penalty Corner not to cross the goal-line at a height greater than 460mm should also be borne in mind.
********************
The parts of the document highlighted in red are broadly the ‘current thinking’ and those highlighted in blue, even where they are part of the written rules and guidance issued by the HRB, are generally ignored. One of the most striking things about the document is, that having dismissed evasive action as an attempt ‘to con’ the umpire, there is no alternative way of determining if a ball has been played dangerously at another player offered. It’s “a subjective judgement” , but what criteria is that subjective judgement based upon in order that it may be applied consistently? The latest ‘thinking’ – that a shot on target cannot be dangerous - is a direct result of the adoption of parts of this document, but couldn’t be further away from the opening statements of it. This approach is however consistent, where no judgement relating to danger need be made – because an ‘on target’ shot cannot be dangerous – making inconsistent judgements about dangerous play is not a problem – very easy for the umpire. But is such an approach fair or in line with declared FIH policy on matters relating to player safety? I don’t think so. It may be said to be fair insofar as umpires apply it to both teams in the same way, but there is a profound unfairness evident between the approach to attackers and defenders, especially between shooter and defender in the circle.
In the same year this document was published the Rules Advisory Panel ceased to exist. Job done? It wouldn’t appear so, rules trials increased significantly after that date. Internal politics, ‘stepping on toes’ and ‘ruffled feathers’, seems a more likely reason – umpires had (openly) moved into laying down the rules – the prerogative of the Hockey Rules Board.
One of the priorities now for the HRB – in 2011 renamed the FIH Rules Committee - (if they are to retain any influence or credibility) must be to provide criteria for the recognition of the dangerously played ball: criteria that is fair, objective and can be applied consistently, without reliance on subjective judgement (the umpire’s opinion) alone. In the critical areas of the dangerously played shot at the goal and obstructive play i.e. ball shielding (both unique to hockey), umpires have demonstrated that consistency – and easy decision making – is achieved by ignoring these offences or pretending they do not exist; so umpires must confine themselves to applying the rules as given – not making or ‘reinterpreting’ them – their role in this area is to interpret the actions of players in relation to the written rules – not to ‘rewrite’ the rules (but without actually writing anything or referring to anything given by the FIH Rules Committee in the published Rules of Hockey).
********************************
The Rules of Hockey for 2013 -2015 have now been issued and include two Mandatory Experimental Rules, the Direct Lift of a free, which I have been advocating for years, and the Own Goal, which I think is a bad idea, especially as nothing further has been done to control the raised hit into the circle.
The opportunity to address deficiencies in the Rules concerning the dangerously played ball, in particular the introduction of objective criteria to define it, and the current ignoring of ball shielding as an offence has once again been allowed to slip by.
Among a number of other issues the penalty corner remains unchanged, the ban on the playing of a free ball, awarded in the opponent’s 23m area, into the circle remains, as does the mess of 5m restrictions cluttering the Self-Pass. Nothing has been done to free up the receiving of an aerial ball at above shoulder height by a player in free-space.
The Direct Lift is the one improvement, but without prohibiting the lifting of a free, awarded outside the opponents 23m area, into the circle – and so the development of set-pieces based on that – this improvement is likely to lead to more dangerous situations in the circles.
.
Edit 21 July 2012. Field Hockey. The suggested direct-lift has been adopted into the Rules of Hockey for 2013-15.
Edit 3rd April 2013. Thus far the facility to raise the ball directly from a free has not caused any ‘ripples’. The self-pass still seems to dominate restarts after a free ball has been awarded, whereas before the introduction of the self-pass the ‘touch and scoop’ was frequently used. Danger arising from facility to lift a free ball directly into the circle has not materialized, as I thought it might, mainly I think because the circle is seldom clear of opponents and the opportunity for a pass directly to an attacker (that will not be penalised as dangerous play) seldom occurs after a free ball is awarded. I wonder what might have happened if the direct-lift had been introduced first or the two measures had been introduced at the same time – which is what I had originally hoped for.
****************
Some years ago I suggested that a team awarded a free anywhere on the pitch should be afforded the facility to lift it directly with any stroke except a hit. There were two reasons for the suggestion. Firstly, it complemented the self-pass, which was suggested at the same time, because it would then be of little advantage to defenders to put a ‘wall’ around the position of a free awarded against them, to block in a self-passer. Secondly, it provided a safe alternative for the scoop combined with the (ignored) ’1m rule’ (and the need for attackers who want to lift the ball to have two players adjacent to it) – which was often followed by a defender trying to charge the ball down – more to distract the lifter into ‘fluffing’ the lift, or being inaccurate with it, than with any real hope of interception (in fact probably with the hope that the charging defender would not be hit with the ball but the scoop would be penalised as dangerous).
A suggested restriction was that a ‘lifted free’ could not be lifted directly into the shooting circle.
There were some ‘whispers’ that the direct lift would be introduced in 2006, but that did not happen. I think it is still the preferable alternative to the present ‘touch and scoop’ between the 23′s and would also resolve some of the problems the self-pass has thrown up.
Defenders do not want to retreat far from a player who they think will self-pass, but they will certainly move to guard their ‘back-yard’ if the ball can easily be lifted directly over any ‘wall’. That in turn should make openings for the shorter ground passes and for the self-pass.
Obviously the suggestion is aimed more at play between the 23′s but there is no reason the ball could not be scooped wide of the circle, or even over the circle from one side of the pitch to the other, from within the 23 areas.
The ‘Direct Lift’ or ‘Lifted Free’ solves the problem of the attackers ‘wasting’ two players in the taking of a free-ball – just as the self-pass means they no longer need to ‘waste’ even the taker of the free. It solves the passing of the ball 1m before a scoop can be made (which was ‘solved’ previously by ignoring the 1m requirement) and it solves the problem of the defender charging down an intended scoop as soon as the free is played – which in turn allows the taker to scoop the ball with greater consideration, over a greater distance and with greater accuracy – its safer.
The debates that have taken place on Internet hockey forums about a self-passer scooping the ball with a second touch, and the debate on lifting the ball over the circle, while the possibility of the Direct Lift is ignored, seem ludicrous to me.
Since writing the above passage I have come across this from the 1976 Rules of Hockey:-
14. FREE HIT.
For Women Only.
b) The ball shall be stationary. Any legitimate stroke may
be used except that any ball propelled into the circle
shall not rise above knee height.
For Men Only.
d) The ball shall be stationary and the striker shall hit the
ball or PUSH IT ALONG THE GROUND. A flick or
scoop shot shall not be permitted.
So my suggestion is not entirely new. The women were, (before the joining of the two Associations and the subsequent issue of a uniform set of rules), allowed to lift the ball from a ‘free’ even with a hit. The men were specifically forbidden from raising the ball with any stroke (men being considered more dangerous and irresponsible I suppose).
Prohibiting the direct lifting of a free-ball with a hit, but allowing it with a flick, lob, scoop, is a different approach and one that I believe would improve the game.
.
