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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Penalties.

Procedure for the taking of a penalty corner.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Penalty Corner.

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

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

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

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

12.4 A penalty stroke is awarded :

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion?

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

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

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

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

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

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

This in open play during a high level match,

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

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

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

.

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

Field Hockey Rules: Disadvantaged, benefit gained.

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.  Advantage  which 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 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.

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. 

.

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

Field Hockey Rules: Commentator announces current ‘interpretation’.

Edited 13th October 2012.

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.

.

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

Field Hockey Rules: What’s Wrong with Hockey?

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 Rules  http://wp.me/p3tNmd-3