Field Hockey Rules: The ‘Sticks’ Rule

Field Hockey Rules. This is the 2011-13 version.

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.
.

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

Field Hockey Rules: Interwoven myths

Field Hockey: Dangerous play and ball/body contact myths

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

The myths

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

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

.

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

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

.

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

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

.

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

FIH statement from the Preface to the Rules of Hockey.

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

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

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

.

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

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

.

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

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

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

.

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

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

.

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

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

.

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

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

.

The relevant Rules.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Field Hockey Rules: Direct Lift from Free ball

Edit 21 July 2012.  Field Hockey. The suggested direct-lift has been adopted into the Rules of Hockey for 2013-15.

Edit 3rd April 2013.  Thus far the facility to raise the ball directly from a free has not caused any ‘ripples’. The self-pass still seems to dominate restarts after a free ball has been awarded, whereas before the introduction of the self-pass the ‘touch and scoop’ was frequently used. Danger arising from facility to lift a free ball directly into the circle has not materialized, as I thought it might, mainly I think because the circle is seldom clear of opponents and the opportunity for a pass directly to an attacker (that will not be penalised as dangerous play) seldom occurs after a free ball is awarded. I wonder what might have happened if the direct-lift had been introduced first or the two measures had been introduced at the same time – which is what I had originally hoped for.

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

Some years ago I suggested that a team awarded a free anywhere on the pitch should be afforded the facility to lift it directly with any stroke except a hit. There were two reasons for the suggestion. Firstly, it complemented the self-pass, which was suggested at the same time, because it would then be of little advantage to defenders to put a ‘wall’ around the position of a free awarded against them, to block in a self-passer. Secondly, it provided a safe alternative for the scoop combined with the (ignored) ’1m rule’ (and the need for attackers who want to lift the ball to have two players adjacent to it) – which was often followed by a defender trying to charge the ball down – more to distract the lifter into ‘fluffing’ the lift, or being inaccurate with it, than with any real hope of interception (in fact probably with the hope that the charging defender would not be hit with the ball but the scoop would be penalised as dangerous).

A suggested restriction was that a ‘lifted free’ could not be lifted directly into the shooting circle.

There were some ‘whispers’ that the direct lift would be introduced in 2006, but that did not happen. I think it is still the preferable alternative to the present ‘touch and scoop’ between the 23′s and would also resolve some of the problems the self-pass has thrown up.

Defenders do not want to retreat far from a player who they think will self-pass, but they will certainly move to guard their ‘back-yard’ if the ball can easily be lifted directly over any ‘wall’. That in turn should make openings for the shorter ground passes and for the self-pass.

Obviously the suggestion is aimed more at play between the 23′s but there is no reason the ball could not be scooped wide of the circle, or even over the circle from one side of the pitch to the other, from within the 23 areas.

The ‘Direct Lift’ or ‘Lifted Free’ solves the problem of the attackers ‘wasting’ two players in the taking of a free-ball – just as the self-pass means they no longer need to ‘waste’ even the taker of the free. It solves the passing of the ball 1m before a scoop can be made (which was ‘solved’ previously by ignoring the 1m requirement) and it solves the problem of the defender charging down an intended scoop as soon as the free is played – which in turn allows the taker to scoop the ball with greater consideration, over a greater distance and with greater accuracy – its safer.

The debates that have taken place on Internet hockey forums about a self-passer scooping the ball with a second touch, and the debate on lifting the ball over the circle, while the possibility of the Direct Lift is ignored, seem ludicrous to me.

Since writing the above passage I have come across this from the 1976 Rules of Hockey:-

14. FREE HIT.
For Women Only.
b) The ball shall be stationary. Any legitimate stroke may
be used except that any ball propelled into the circle
shall not rise above knee height.
For Men Only.
d) The ball shall be stationary and the striker shall hit the
ball or PUSH IT ALONG THE GROUND. A flick or
scoop shot shall not be permitted.

So my suggestion is not entirely new. The women were, (before the joining of the two Associations and the subsequent issue of a uniform set of rules), allowed to lift the ball from a ‘free’ even with a hit. The men were specifically forbidden from raising the ball with any stroke (men being considered more dangerous and irresponsible I suppose).

Prohibiting the direct lifting of a free-ball with a hit, but allowing it with a flick, lob, scoop, is a different approach and one that I believe would improve the game.
.

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

Field Hockey Rules: The Intentionally Lifted hit

Amended 3rd February 2013

The ban on the intentionally raised hit in field hockey. – Dangerous lifting of the ball. Suggestions.

The hurling style lift-and-hit is not now specifically banned, as it once was, but would probably be regarded as a lifted hit; we have no idea if bouncing the ball on the stick is technically permitted, stationary or running, although it is usually allowed if not dangerous (in what circumstances this action would be considered dangerous was at one time set out in the Rules of Hockey, but was removed – I have no idea why) and the up-and-under slap-hit of a bouncing or falling ball that produces a lob-like effect, can be a spectacular skill, has never been ruled for, but is seen occasionally in the modern game.

If we take the present rule literally (how else can we take it?) the lob-hit (as I have above termed it), no matter how much attacking players and umpires would like to see it as part of the game (i.e. they would like it for attackers but not defenders – who could possibly use such a stoke to hit the ball out of the circle), is presently not legal – and the advantage gained can be huge.

I have read Internet discussions where it is suggested, as a ‘get round’ that this hit-lob might be referred to as guiding or stroking the ball rather than as hitting it ( The ‘bending’ of rule with such semantics is only a good argument for reducing subjective decision making by umpires. Where it is felt a Rule is inappropriate for game circumstances there should be lobby to change the rule not a tacit circumvention of it ).

The hurling-hit can be lethal but it is presumably now (as it is no longer specifically banned) legal from within the circle as method of making a shot at the goal.

Bouncing the ball on the stick is technically hitting it, but as the ball is not propelled beyond the playing reach of the ball holder, it could be seen as a dribbling skill. It is easy enough to make an exception for this skill as long as it is done out of the playing reach of an opponent, but the hit-lob and the hurling-hit propel the ball in ways that are only really different in terms of power (and therefore of  potential danger of injury), even if the style of action (position of hands and arc of swing) are not the same. The lob can of course, like the longer scoop, result in a ball falling from above head height onto the positions of opponents who are too close to each other for safety.

The admonishment in regard to certain playing actions “but this should not be dangerous” is a prohibition that results in the award of a penalty after dangerous play has actually occurred; by itself it does not prevent injuries caused by the presently allowed (but possibly not legal) strokes, such as those I have termed hurling-hit and lob-hit, and also the blindly propelled drag-flick (the flick that is propelled at the same place each time irrespective of the positions of defenders) , all of which have a very high potential for dangerous execution: other limits are required.

The blanket ban on the intentional lifted hit in the outfield is too simplistic and, as the possible variations in lifting stroke are limited, it is possible to compose rules to either include or exclude from the game particular hitting actions used to lift the ball, and also to control the scope of those that are permitted.

Certain flicking or scooping actions are also potentially dangerous because the ball velocity will reach that of a well struck lifted hit, ( I recently read an interview of Ashley Jackson in which a claim of 100mph was made for his drag-flick – which, if accurate, is astonishing, as most good hitters of the ball have difficulty exceeding 75mph). It is obvious that because of the potential for serious injury to any player struck with a ball of such velocity (or the more common 60 -70mph), any reference to lifting the ball coupled with dangerous play must include such strokes – the days when it was possible to assume that a lifted flick or scoop would be of much lower velocity than an undercut hit are long gone.

There are four criteria that may be used to limit any lifted ball and to describe potentially dangerous play. The first is that the ball must not be propelled at a player in a way that forces self-defence, the other three are Velocity; Height; Distance. I will start with a suggestion for a rule wording to which modifications can be made and guidance added.

A player shall not propel the ball at another player at above a height of 1200mm (elbow height).

This initial suggested rule wording applies to a ball propelled from any distance where player reaction may be insufficient to allow a player targeted with the ball to make an adequate self-defence (evade, stop or control/deflect the ball) because of the velocity of the ball or because that player was unsighted or otherwise handicapped (for example, blocked, barged or otherwise impeded) at or just prior to the moment the ball was propelled. Wording for Guidance needs to be composed to include what is necessary for the reasonable safety of players from the above and the following observations.

(There can be no absolute safety and such a target would be undesirable anyway, hockey is a competitive sport with a hard ball and sticks, danger is inherent in such activity, therefore some risk of injury must be accepted by any player who takes part in a hockey game. The aim is to prevent injury as a result of actions that are contrary to Rule by describing clearly what actions are illicit and will be penalized so that players will be be deterred from intentionally carrying out these actions).

RULE SUGGESTION: The ball may not be propelled with any stroke at above elbow height at another player in a way that forces self defence.

Above elbow height is the area of the heart, throat and head and an area where a ball impact at high velocity is likely to cause serious and/or long term injury or possibly even death. A ball propelled at a player at elbow height or above and at high velocity is therefore likely to compel self-defence to avoid injury.

The usual speed at which a hockey ball is hit or flicked by a top class striker (which does not necessarily mean a highly skilled player) is at present between 60mph -75mph. A ball propelled at 75mph will travel approximately 33.85m in one second.

The average pure reaction time (time between stimulus and physical movement, using simple single tasks in laboratory experiments e.g. pressing a button when a light is lit) of a healthy individual is approximately 0.22 seconds, variation is normally in the range 0.20 secs. – 0.24 secs. Pure reaction time cannot be significantly improved by training, although minor short term reductions (two or three hundredths of a second) are possible and can be maintained with repeated training. Anticipation, on the other hand, such as the ‘reading’ of ‘body-language’ as an opponent approaches and makes the stroke to propel the ball, can be greatly improved by both training and by playing experience – this is the skill which is so often mistakenly referred to as ‘fast reactions’.

A ball propelled at 75mph will travel approximately 7.5m in 0.22 seconds. In view of the complex nature of the response required to either successfully play the ball or to evade it, even without distractions like closing attackers or impediments such as sight-blocking, it is reasonable to state that any ball lifted above elbow height and at high velocity at an opponent can, because of its potential to injure, be dangerous to that opponent. A ball propelled in this way may, if it hits an opponent, be penalised as dangerous play or intimidation or a forcing offence and dangerous play or intimidation if it compels any player to self-defence (with the stick or by attempting evasive action).

(Note: The offence of forcing an opponent into a rule breach has been removed from the Rules of Hockey 2011/13  as a separate offence in itself – I think this to be a serious error of judgement by the FIH Rules Committee)

The previous removal of the facility for a targeted player to defend himself with his hand is also contentious, especially as it was once printed in the Rules of Hockey in upper case letter to emphasize its importance. The conclusion must be that if a player believes he cannot defend himself with his stick, he should if he can, evade the ball – not defend himself with his hand. One of the problems with this conclusion is that despite  ’caused to take legitimate evasive action’ being a definition of a dangerously played ball, such evasion, when the defender is in front of the goal, usually results in the award of a goal and not a free-ball to the defence for dangerous play, which logically and fairly it should – such failure to use and apply the definition of ‘dangerously played’  may lead to defenders taking unnecessary risks, risks they should not ever feel obliged to take, to defend the goal in a game.

No maximum distance limit is proposed simply because in the past any distance given has been regarded as a maximum distance, outside which there can be no ball played dangerously at an opponent, (the present , incorrect, attitude of many to the current “within 5m is considered dangerous” is that a ball propelled from beyond 5m of a player can’t be dangerous to that player). Height and velocity are the main criteria but of course (other things being equal e,g. the absence of sight blocking) the nearer the striker is to the opponent the less time there is to react to the path of the ball, and the greater the velocity the greater the potential for injury.

A maximum distance for a dangerously played ball can also be seen to be impractical when the scooped ball is considered as a cause of dangerous play or play leading to dangerous play , a limit of 10m or 15m would still leave most scoops outside the rule when considering if the ball was lifted to fall in a place where the potential for danger was apparent at the time the ball was lifted, e.g. the area between the penalty spot and the goal when players who were likely to contest for the falling ball occupied that area. (for example in the 2010 World Cup game between England and Pakistan where the English player Tindal who was positioned in the opponent’s circle hit a falling ball, on the volley, into the goal while it was being contested for by a defender, who had closed on Tindal and attempted to play the ball with his stick well above his head  height ).

The previous prohibition on lifting the ball above knee height at another player who is within 5m of the ball at the moment it is propelled, irrespective of velocity, must remain but it is suggested that it be amended to apply only within 3m of the ball, not 5m.

A ball propelled to pass between the legs of an opponent at above knee height and from within 3m should be considered to be at that opponent.

High velocity is a subjective judgement.

A high velocity ball is one that has been propelled at a velocity at which, in the judgement of the umpire, if it hit a player it would injure that player.

The judgement of high velocity should not be based on supposed reaction times or skill levels (on the ability of the player to play a ball propelled at him or to evade it) but on the potential of the ball to cause injury when it is played at and forces another player to self-defence or hits him.

Where an over-height ball at a defender is intercepted with the stick successfully by that defender the umpire need take no action against the player who propelled the ball (but may do so to discourage repetition of the action if it is seen as reckless); where the defender is disadvantaged – forced to evasive self-defence or hit, particularly when the attacker had other shooting options, and especially in congested or contested situations, the umpire should penalise the shooter for dangerous play.

Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary (such as repetition of apparently targeting a defender when there were clearly other options available to the shooter, e.g. repeatedly propelling a drag-flick at a particular place in the goal when previous flicks there have forced evasive action or forced self-defence from either an out-running player or a player positioned in front of the goal ) it will be assumed that an attacker shooting at the goal when there are defenders stationed between the attackers position and the goal, is shooting at the goal and not intentionally at defenders – but hitting a defender with a ball that is propelled at that defender at above elbow height at high velocity (or above knee height from within 3m irrespective of velocity) should be seen as dangerous play, irrespective of such intent, and penalised as such.

In the same way it will also be assumed, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, that a defender hit with the ball while attempting to intercept a shot at the goal, intended to play the ball with his stick and not with his body. ( evidence to the contrary would be a player making no effort at all to play the ball with the stick when that was possible, or moving laterally into the path of the ball after it has been propelled – but again, only if there is no attempt to use the stick to play the ball)

Any legitimate* positioning in front of the goal to defend the goal prior to a shot should not be interpreted as an intent to play the ball with the body (even if the body is positioned behind the stick) or as an acceptance that the defender can be targeted with the ball by an attacker. The notion that a defender intentionally endangers himself by taking up a defensive position in front of the goal, between an attacker in possession of the ball and the goal, must be suppressed as unsound – because it is a judgement that may be made without tangible evidence other than the fact that the player was hit with the ball, which is not clear evidence of intent to play the ball with the body.

The idea that the defender accepts all possible risks when defending the goal, even those associated with dangerous play and other illegal acts by opponents, is unreasonable: so unreasonable it is absurd. The risks defenders (and all other players) accept are those associated with legal play, not illegal play. The current climate of opinion seems to be to change what was previously considered illegal dangerous play to legitimate play, thus removing all responsibility for shooting actions from the shooter. We have reached the point where umpires are informing players that an ‘on target’ shot at the goal cannot be dangerous – such umpires are abdicating from their responsibility to see that the game is played fairly and reasonably safely. No doubt that is the easy thing to do and it is consistent but it is not fair and it is unsafe.

The umpire should try to prevent any repeat of reckless endangerment by penalising it whenever it occurs – it can occur if an attacker shoots at a defender when there are other viable ways to score, such as open space in the goal wide of the position of the defender, that the attacker had opportunity take advantage of. Whether play by an attacker when shooting at the goal is reasonable or reckless is a judgement call by the umpire, part of that judgement is the prior positioning of any defender ( an attacker should seek to avoid hitting a defender with the ball) and part the time and options available to the attacker.

*(Legitimate positioning by defenders does not include deliberately lying on the ground and other similar reckless positioning in the path of the ball, such as sitting or kneeling; the term assumes a normal on-feet playing stance by all except the goal-keeper, who may ‘go to ground’ at any time, but not make physical contact with an opponent while doing so).

Shots at the goal from within the circle.

Suggested Guidance Any shot at goal within the circles in open play (or second and subsequent shots at a penalty corner) may be propelled at the goal to any height but may not be propelled at high velocity at any player at above 1200mm. – the approximate elbow height of a male player of average height when in a normal standing position. (Adjustment to this suggested height can and should be made for women and further adjustment for junior players according to age).

A ball which passes between the point of the shoulder and the side of the head of a player will be considered to be at the player concerned. At levels below the head a ball that will miss an opponent will not be considered to be at that opponent no matter how closely it may pass outside their position without contact.

All shots at the goal from within the circle made at below knee-height from any distance will (subject to reckless play) be considered legitimate. An above knee-height shot at the goal that is also at a defender – but is below 1200mm – should (subject to reckless play) be considered a legitimate shot at any velocity from any distance beyond 3m.

All else being equal (e.g. there being no prior offence by the attacker to take into consideration and the shot cannot reasonably be considered reckless e.g. if the attacker did not have other target options or the time to choose an alternative shot), if a defended other than the goalkeeper is struck on the body with a legitimate shot at the goal and thereby prevents a goal, a penalty stroke may be awarded. This is because the purpose of the game is to win by scoring goals and there is no other measure of winning, so an unfair benefit will have accrued to the team of a player who prevents a goal other than by legitimate means, and adequate compensation for this unfairness must be given to the attacking team. This penalty is also necessary to prevent reckless defending.

If the defending player did not clearly intend to play the ball with the body but prevented a goal a penalty-stroke is sufficient penalty (the option of a penalty-goal is not available in these circumstances**); where there is clear intent to use the body to play the ball the defender concerned should also be suspended.

**(there is a reasonable case for the introduction of a penalty goal in cases where a certain goal has been prevented by clearly deliberate use of the body by a defender other than the nominated goalkeeper – this would prevent defenders being reckless enough to deliberately move to put their body in the way of a shot,  without an attempt to use the stick,  in the hope that the subsequent penalty stroke will be missed).

If a defender is hit with a shot or other ball propelled inside the circle by an attacker but he does not certainly prevent a goal (e.g. there being other defenders behind the one hit when the shot at the goal was made) then all else being equal (e.g. no clear intent by the defender to use the feet/body, no injury to the defender, no reckless play by the attacker) play should continue. An unavoidable or accidental ball/body contact is not an offence and there is no reason other than an offence (or injury) for the umpire to stop play or penalize when there is a ball/body contact.  There is ample evidence that penalizing accidental or unavoidable foot and body/ ball contacts will probably encourage reckless shooting at the goal or the deliberate forcing of such contacts by attacking players in possession of the ball. It is in fact much more reasonable to penalise an attacker for gaining a benefit from a ball/body contact in the opponent’s circle than it is to penalise a defender for such a contact – unless a defender makes such ball/body contact intentionally.

Much of what has been written above will apply particularly to the drag flick when it is used as a first shot at a penalty-corner and the ball is lifted high at the goal; such drag flicks need have no height limit as long as they are made at a part of the goal that is open at the time the stroke is executed, not made directly at a player.

Lifted ball in the areas outside the circles.

In this proposal the dangerously played ball rule is the same everywhere on the field of play, i.e. a ball may not be propelled at a player at high velocity at above elbow height anywhere on the field of play.

Outside the circles the ball may be lifted in any direction to any height with any stroke  except a hit.

I propose that the ball should also be permitted to be lifted with a hit to elbow height when play is outside the circles , but must not in any circumstances be lifted with a hit to above shoulder height – such play will be considered either dangerous or time-wasting (it will probably be necessary to devise an exception for the lob-hit mentioned above).

Allowing the lifted hit in the outfield would make it necessary to reintroduce a prohibition on the lifting of the ball with a hit directly into the circle. This ban should apply to a ball lifted directly off the stick of the striker and directly into the circle, not to deflections off the surface of the pitch outside the circle. But any deflection of a hit from outside the circle, off the ground or off the stick of a team-mate out-side the circle should be required pass into the circle at below knee height and not rise to above knee height during its flight within the circle. Flicks,scoops and lobs into and from within the circle to remain unrestricted in height except where the flick or scoop is from a free ball. A free ball should not be lifted directly into the circle with any stroke in any circumstances.

The hurling-hit i.e. lifting the ball with the stick and then hitting it before it falls to ground or on the half-volley, as it bounces up from the ground after such a lift, should be banned in the outfield and not permitted as a shot at the goal when there is a defender other than the nominated goalkeeper between the shooter and the goal. (For the purpose of this particular suggestion, a field player standing in for a goalkeeper as a ‘kicking back’ i.e. wearing only a helmet as additional protection, should be treated as a field player, not as a fully equipped goalkeeper)

An attacker receiving a raised ball in the circle may take a shot at the goal on the volley only if the ball is below elbow height when he hits it, but if he does carry out this action he should shoot downwards towards the goal (but not so as to cause the ball to bounce up off the pitch above knee height before it crosses the goal line), essentially he should not not raise the ball into the goal higher than it was when he hit it and also not dangerously or recklessly. Alternatively he could control the received aerial ball to ground and then shoot at the goal without height restriction, but of course not dangerously or recklessly.

ADDITIONAL FIELD EQUIPMENT .

A brightly coloured strong woven tape, no more than 50mm wide, to be run from the back of each goal-post and around the back of the goal-net and supports at a height of 1200mm. The front and sides of goalposts will be marked with paint or plastic sticking tape at the same height and at the same width.(The goal tape can be adjustable and may be lower for junior players). The alternative discussed here:  

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

PENALTY CORNER Additions

A first hit shot at a penalty corner which is raised sufficiently above 460mm to make it improbable that it will fall below 460mm before it reaches the goal-line should be penalised immediately that is apparent, as dangerous (or as non-compliant) and a 15m awarded to the defending team.

After the ball is inserted at a penalty corner it should not be permitted to be played by any attacking player until it has passed completely out of the circle. If the ball does not reach the circle line after it is inserted the umpire should blow the whistle when it becomes stationary, declare the ball ‘dead’ and award a 15m free - which should then be taken from any position in front of the goal and 15m from the goal – unless the defending team intercept the ball and wish to continue play – in which case normal play would resume and attackers could engage. In such a case the penalty corner would not be over until the ball was played to beyond the 5m outer circle or played out of the shooting circle for a second time and a goal could not be scored until the ball has been played out of the circle and had then been played back in.

Amended 8th February 2011

Goal tape. The straps used as cargo ties on transport are suitable. They can be hooked to the back of the goal-posts, and tensioned with elasticated ties or using an integral ratchet (which should be suitably covered for safety).
.

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