The Direct Lift Mandatory Experiment has thrown up a paradox.
A Free-Hit may be lifted directly with any stroke except a hit.
It is surprising that the FIH Rules Committee did not alter the term for the penalty because they have made alterations to terminology elsewhere. The game used to start with a Bully, that was sensibly changed to Pass-Back (not Hit Back) when the game was started with a back-pass and subsequently to Center-Pass, when the ball could be played in any direction to start. Lateral thinking should have led to other changes of name at the same time, but that didn’t occur.
One change that was made was to rename the Long Corner a Corner, but the habit of calling that restart a Long Corner is so ingrained that it is still called Long Corner (which does not matter) but it is often written (long) Corner to distinguish it from the Penalty Corner – which for some unknown reason is called a Short Corner. The oddity is not created by renaming the Long Corner a Corner, it is a result of someone long ago (maybe before the existence of the HRB) using the word ‘corner’ in the term used to describe inserting the ball into play from a position on the base-line 10 yards (later 10m) from a goal-post during a penalty re-start awarded for an offence in the circle (another odd name, I wonder is that the result of dropping ’semi’ from semi-circle? D is a better descriptive term, but few use it). Why was ‘corner ‘ used at all? Perhaps, at one time, the penalty Corner was inserted from the corner formed by the intersection of the base-line and the circle-line? Penalty-Inject or Penalty-Insert would have served the purpose, without causing a need to rename the Corner a Long-Corner. Hopefully the Penalty-Corner will be replaced with a Penalty-Play (a penalty power-play in the 23m area) in the not too distance future and this inconsequential irregularity will disappear.
Given the ease with which confusing terms can confuse those not familiar with the game (for example television commentators – who appear to be selected for their ignorance – during the Olympic Games) I was surprised to read this comment by a Tournament Director, who prides himself on being something of a pedant, when it was suggested that Free-Hit should be changed to Free-Start or Free-Ball or Free-Pass (all of which avoid the contradiction mentioned above).
Here’s something to think about for those of you that want to change a perfectly serviceable piece of nomenclature for something new: FIH changed all the measurements in the book to metric several years ago (can’t be bothered to look up when, I’m sure someone will), yet most of us still refer to ‘a 16′ rather than ‘a 15′ and ‘the 25′ rather than ‘the 23′; so I reckon even if the name was changed to a ‘free ball’ or a ‘free start’ 90%+ of us would still refer to it as a ‘free hit’.
Don’t (want to) believe me? Look at football: in 1996 FIFA officially changed the name of the two guys with the flags from ‘linesmen’ to ‘assistant referees’. How many people call them assistant referees even after 17 years? Very, very few.
I believe him, metrication took place in 1974 but the British still use pounds and ounces. Although I never refer to the 23m (line or area) as the 25, or a 15m as a 16 yd., I still think of the weight of a hockey stick in ounces. But I have to say – so what? Is there any contradiction or confusion likely when someone says 16 rather than 15 or calls a football (soccer) official a linesman rather than an assistant-referee? Notice how it is sometimes necessary to write (soccer) after football – so that Americans who play a game in which the ball is played with the hands 99.95% of the time – don’t get confused, even when no-one else in the world understands why Grid Iron is called Football by Americans . The important thing is that in the Rules of Hockey and in the Laws of Association Football – and the official rules of any other game – correct terminology is presented.
We all know about the annoyance of change when we don’t want change (for example, having to call hockey ‘field-hockey’ because ice-hockey players call their – much more commercially successful - game, hockey), but resisting sensible change for the sake of resisting change – which is what this TD is doing when he writes ” to change a perfectly serviceable piece of nomenclature for something new - is a case of him just being silly or ’bloody-minded’.
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, 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?
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).
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
As it has been declared by a few individuals and believed by some that an ‘on target’ shot at the goal cannot be considered dangerous, it is reasonable to suggest reducing the height of the goal. Previously this would have been unthinkable because of the expense involved in altering goals (buying new ones) but a new goal, one meter wider than the present standard goal is being tried in the Lanco 9′s International Tournament in Australia, and if there is a possibility of the field hockey goal being made wider, new goals will be required anyway: so why not do both, widen the goal (more than one meter) and reduce the height of it ?
The suggestion is for a goal height of 12o cms (approximately 48″) and a width of 5m, with the cross-bar replaced with a tensioned fabric strap (for safety reasons). The tie-down straps used in the transport industry are widely available and inexpensive. Attaching a net to the back of a such strap would not be difficult.
A lower goal-crossbar would not permit a goalkeeper to stand behind the line at the commencement of a penalty corner nor on the line during a penalty stroke but these are not insurmountable difficulties.
The advantage is that it would then be possible to say that an on target flick-shot during a penalty corner and any goal shot made on target from more than 5m in open play will not be dangerous – assuming dangerous can be accepted as above 120cms (elbow height) and at a player.
Under the proposal this shot would not be dangerous play – even though there is evasive action – the ball is not raised at the player from within 5m and to above 120cms – and the defender is on his feet.
The down-side is the loss of ‘spectacular’ high shots at the goal but that is more than compensated for by the loss of spectacular head injuries and the endangerment of out-runners (who generally are within 5m) caused by high shots.
It is worth noting that of the ten penalty corners shown as best in the EHL in 2008 eight of the drag-flicks were low level shots and (in my opinion) the other two were dangerous play.
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.
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. 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.
A statement by a senior umpire recently posted on a closed Internet field hockey board.
Despite what some would have you believe, there are no major conflicts between the rule book, how that is interpreted by FIH umpires and how the FIH wants the game blown.
Let’s take another look at that statement. What is the umpire who wrote it claiming? Well he declares you are being lied to by “some” who claim there are major conflicts between:-
1) The content of the rulebook and the way the FIH want the Rules ‘blown’ (applied).
2) What is written in the book and how that is interpreted by FIH Umpires – i.e. conflict about the meaning of the language used in the Rules and Rule Guidance and also conflict about the purpose of the advice, Rule and Rule Guidance that is given in the rulebook – the intent of the Rules.
3) The way the content of the rulebook is interpreted by FIH umpires and how the FIH want the Rules applied.
I agree there is no conflict between the content of the rulebook and the way the FIH wants the Rules applied. The Rules are drafted by the FIH Rules Committee and approved by the FIH Executive. In matters of Rules for Conduct of Play, equipment specs and related areas, theses two bodies are “the FIH”, so what is written in the Rules of Hockey is what the FIH want. This degree of truth lends credence to the falsehood that there is no major conflict.
The conflict is in areas 2) and 3) How FIH Umpires (or any other group of umpires) choose to interpret and apply the Rules and Rule Guidance i.e. how they interpret what the FIH want or in other words, how they interpret what the FIH Rules Committee have published in the Rules of Hockey.
The same individual who wrote the quoted statement has suggested on the previous occasions he has submitted the same declaration (at least half-a-dozen times previously), that if umpires were not doing what the FIH wanted they (the umpires) would not continue to be reappointed. There is something in that, but then who replaces them? Umpires who have been trained in the same way by the same people who coached the current crop? It is not as easy to make sweeping changes as we might like after years of verbal ‘cascading’ of personal opinion. This is not a matter of trimming a few dead branches, the whole tree has to be uprooted and a new one planted, the core is rotten.
The FIH Appointments Committee should not have anything at all to do with the drafting and adoption of Rules and Rule Guidance, and (in theory) the FIH Umpiring Committee only a consultative role, pertaining perhaps to the impact on or difficulty for umpires in applying changes made to Rule or Rule Guidance i.e. those drafted by the FIH Rules Committee for approval by the FIH Executive. To this end the FIH Umpiring Ciommittee produce the UMB (Umpire Managers Briefing for Umpires at FIH Tournaments) – which is NOT the Rules of Hockey and can never conflict with the Rules of Hockey, but in fact the UMB is used to alter the the intended application of the Rules of Hockey.
Going back to 2) - Who or what is the conflict of the FIH Umpires with and why is there conflict? The answer is a) the meaning of language b) common sense and c) fairness – so, everybody and everything – and it is done in the name of ‘consistency’. So how are they getting away with it?
They get away with it because they are almost unchallenged, largely because of a general apathy, and because they issue statements in Internet forums like the one above – along the lines ‘We are right so we must be right’ e.g. “This is what other (or all) FIH Umpires do” are typical ‘conclusive arguments’ – statements and attitudes designed to resist and repel any ‘outside’ influence on how they umpire.
FIH Umpire Managers and FIH Umpire Coaches behave as if they ARE “the FIH”, even some individual FIH Umpires do so and can become furious if their opinion is challenged. They like to treat everybody outside the umpiring fraternity as if they are players under their authority on a pitch during a hockey match – where questioning may be treated as dissent and met with punishment. “Despite what some would have you believe, there are no major conflicts between the rule book, how that is interpreted by FIH umpires and how the FIH wants the game blown.“
The conflicts ‘boil down’ to understanding the meaning and intent of the Rules and Rule Guidance provided by the FIH Rules Committee. Major conflict is easy to demonstrate.
Major conflict: No reading of the Rule 9.8 or any other Rule could possibly lead to the conclusion that an on target shot at the goal cannot be dangerous play.
Major conflict: No reading of Rule 9.12 could possibly lead to the conclusion that the player attempting to tackle in the picture shown is not obstructed – but quite obviously neither player is expecting an ‘obstruction’ call and the umpire did not recognize the ball holder’s actions (or lack of action) as obstructive play – ball shielding to prevent a legitimate tackle.
Previous umpiring practice has led to ignorance of the Rule – and not only this one. How umpires apply the Rules, not what is written in the Rules of Hockey, has come to dictate what the Rules are or are perceived to be.
.
.
.
.
Major conflict: No reading of Rule 9.9 could possibly lead to the conclusion that intentionally raising the ball into the circle with a hit is not an offence or can be ignored unless dangerous.(It is sloppy of the FIH Executive to allow contradiction of this point in the UMB )
Major conflict: No reading of Rule 9.11. could possibly lead to the conclusion that all ball/body contacts are offences and that any ball/body contact may be penalised. FIH Umpires and others will be quick to point out in forums and in conversation that they completely agree with this observation, but ‘in practice’ all ball/body contacts are treated as offences.
Major conflict:No reading of Rule 13.1 (Procedure for taking a Free Hit) could possibly lead to the conclusion that, having taken a self-pass when an opponent is still within 5m, the taker is then entitled to move the ball 5m before that opponent may challenge for the ball or otherwise influence the play of the taker (Here again what has been added to the UMB – taken from previous umpiring interpretation – contradicts the Rule Guidance given in Rules of Hockey). If you have any doubt about that then read the Rule and Rule Guidance.
My name is ‘some’ and I am one of thousands who disagree with the statement that there is no conflict between the published Rules of Hockey and the way in which they are applied.
Field Hockey: Dangerous play and ball/body contact myths
There are a number assertions for which no support in Rule or Rule Guidance is to be found but which are firmly held to be true by many participants. By umpires (because of coaching and observed ‘practice’) and by players (because of the way umpires apply the Rules). The latter is called ‘player expectation’ by umpires and is used as a justification for continuing to interpret and apply the Rule in the way they do. This process gives rise to ‘urban myths’. I am going to explore here those myths connected to the various Rules which are brought to bear when one player plays the ball at or into another, or a player ‘plays’ the ball with their body, intentionally or otherwise.
The myths
The assertions made in these ‘myths’ are generally corruption, misinterpretation or even inversion of Rules or the Rules Guidance. Occasionally they are pure invention, the creation of a myth based on the acceptance of a previous evolved myth called ‘practice’.
“All ball/body contacts should be penalised” (are offences). A contradiction of the Rule Guidance It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player. The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball or if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way.
. “Defenders have an obligation to defend their feet”(and should be penalised if they fail to do so even when contact is forced by an opponent). Here an assumption is made that any defender positioned to intercept the ball or positioning to tackle, who is hit with the ball, intended to be so hit (without the intent there would be no offence). There are no grounds for such a sweeping assumption, each incident must be judged separately on clear evidence of intent or willingness to be hit with the ball.
The speed with which the offence of forcing such contact (specifically an offence until 1st January 2011) has been turned into an offence by the player the ball is forced into, is astonishing. Such forcing is now supposed to be dealt with by “other Rules”so it should still be considered an offence – the problem is that the “other Rules” have not been identified by the Rules Committee, but dangerous play and intimidation are both possibilities where the forcing is powerfully done.
. “All ball/body contacts are of benefit or advantage to the player making the contact and disadvantage opponents”. Not only is this untrue it is irrelevant. Gaining benefit from a ball/body contact is not an offence and nor does it create an offence. The gaining of a benefit is mentioned in the Rules in relation to the playing of advantage when an offence has been committed. It is no longer used to create an offence from a breach of Rule (such as stopping the ball with the body) that was not an offence (because it was not intentional). Advantage : it is not necessary for every offence to be penalised when no benefit is gained by the offender ; unnecessary interruptions to the flow of the match cause undue delay and irritation”.
Note this advice to umpires is written in relation to offences, not unintentional breaches of Rule.
The only other reference to gaining benefit is in relation to time-wasting.
In the absence of an offence, like deliberate time-wasting, disadvantaging opponents is part of the game, being competitive – tackling, scoring goals etc. etc.
.
“Defenders who are positioned behind their sticks intend to play the ball with their body if they miss it with the stick. Without clear evidence of intent to use the body to play the ball i.e. of an offence, there is no reason a player should not be directly behind the stick when stopping the ball . Positioning the body behind the stick is a standard playing technique when it is not known to which side of the body the ball might be played and is not of itself evidence of intent to play the ball with the body – the assumption must be that if the player misses the ball with the stick when attempting to play it with the stick, such a miss is unintentional, and in such circumstances body position is not relevant (assuming the player is on her/his feet rather than lying or sitting or kneeling on the ground)
.
“A defender who is positioned on/in front of the goal-line when hit with the ball must be penalised with a penalty stroke” I have heard this one trotted out at Level One umpire induction courses on several occasions but it can be true only when there has been no prior dangerous play i.e. the shot is not dangerous and the player hit has clearly and intentionally played the ball with the body rather than the stick.
Certainty that there has been a deliberate offence is required before a penalty stroke may be awarded. The withdrawal of the ‘gains benefit’ clause has, unfortunately, removed the only ground on which the accidental prevention of a goal with the body could have been penalised.
.
“A defender positioned on the goal-line causes danger”. It is an illogical inversion of fact to suggest that the positioning of the defender is the cause of dangerous play. Such positioning can cause the play of the player propelling the ball to be dangerous but does not cause the play that is dangerous. If the ball is not propelled at (the position of) another player there can be no dangerously played ball. The distinction may seem subtle even though it isn’t, and language can used to bamboozle those not paying attention, but one might just as well say that the ground causes rain to make it wet, as suggest that defensive positioning prior to the ball being propelled causes dangerous play or is dangerous play.
What is true is that any player who raises the ball at another player at a velocity that could cause injury to that player has endangered that player i.e. has played the ball in a way that is dangerous to others.
.
“A defender who positions on the goal-line accepts any risk of so positioning” ( Is “asking for it”).
FIH statement from the Preface to the Rules of Hockey.
Responsibility and Liability Participants in hockey must be aware of the Rules of Hockey and of other information in this publication. They are expected to perform according to the Rules. Emphasis is placed on safety. Everyone involved in the game must act with consideration for the safety of others.
All players accept the risk of accidental injury but do not, and cannot be expected to, accept risks associated with any action by another participant that is a breach of the Rules.
For example Rule 13.3.1 (concerning second and subsequent shots at goal during a penalty corner – which is the same criteria as in open play) It is permitted to raise the ball to any height (while shooting at the goal) but this must not be dangerous. Defenders do not accept the risk (and nor should they be asked or expected to) that a ball will be intentionally propelled at their position (at them) in a dangerous or reckless way. They do accept the risk of, for example, accidental deflections, rebounds and miss-hits. It is disingenuous for a shooter to claim s/he was shooting at the goal and not at the player who was, prior to the shot, positioned in front of the goal on the line of the shot or moving towards the ball on that line. The responsibility to play without endangering another player applies, as does the liability for doing so.
.
“An ‘on target’ shot at the goal cannot be dangerous play.” This myth is (a very dangerous) invention. It seems to be based on (the unfortunate) fact that there is now no means of penalizing a shooter for reckless or dangerous play when a first shot at the goal at a penalty corner is propelled at an opponent at below knee height. Despite there being no height limit mentioned in Conduct of Play Rules, we have an exception to the possibility of ‘dangerously played ball’ just for the penalty corner shot – any defender struck with a shot which is below knee height must be, – penalised with another penalty corner, this is mandatory (so much for the subjective judgement of umpires). I consider this an aberration because a defender will be penalised even if obviously trying to play the ball with her/his stick, and irrespective of any recklessness or intimidation on the part of the shooter, this is contrary to other Rule.
. “Defenders have time to move out of the way of a ball that is propelled (raised) at them from more than 5m, so such a ball cannot be dangerous play.” An invention using inverted logic. 5m is the minimum distance within which a ball raised at an opponent above knee height will be considered dangerous, not a maximum distance, beyond which dangerous play is impossible. A ball propelled at another player could be considered dangerous play at any distance on the field of play, there is no upper limit.
.
“Defenders voluntarily play the ball with the body if they had time to move out of the way of a shot, don’t do so and are hit with the ball.“ There has to be clear intent to play the ball with the body. Voluntarily means willingly. A player is not willingly hit with the ball if s/he is trying to play it with the stick or is unsighted and unaware of the path of the ball or if attempting, but not succeeding, to take evasive action. To suggest that a player who could have moved out of the path of the ball (was physically able to do so) and therefore should have done so, has committed an offence if s/he doesn’t do so, is simply assuming intent whenever a player is hit with the ball. To suggest that there is a significant difference between intentionally and voluntarily in this context is ‘playing with semantics’ in an effort to make words mean what they are wanted to mean.
Another type of willingness to be hit with the ball might arise if a benefit was to be gained by being so hit but an umpire would have to be certain of the intent before penalising, there must be evidence not just an assumption.
‘Playing’ with semantics and ‘bending over back-wards’ to penalise a player hit with the ball just encourages reckless and dangerous play from any player propelling the ball towards/through opponents and achieves the opposite of the purpose of the Rule. Umpires should not be assisting either party to circumvent Rule or the intent of the Rule – even if that might make the game more interesting or spectacular; it is not the job of an umpire to provide entertainment.
.
“Whether or not a ball propelled at a player is a dangerously played ball depends on the level of play of the players, that is on the ability or skill of the players concerned.” This seems plausible until one considers what it is that makes any ball dangerous to any player (all players having approximately the same reactions times and all being of ‘flesh and bone’). It is the potential of the propelled ball to injure if the player is hit with it. That potential to injure and the degree of possible injury depend on the velocity of the ball and the height at which it is propelled. A player who is able to play a high ball that has been propelled at her/him has been as much endangered by that ball as a player who cannot. It is endangerment not actual injury that makes a ball dangerous. A ball that forces self-defence (rather than the taking of evasive action) to avoid injury, would be a better description of a dangerously played ball. The distance from the defending player the ball is propelled from is relevant only inasmuch as beyond a certain distanced, depending on ball velocity, it will be possible for the player to react to the ball (if s/he is aware of its path).
What goes to the root of the problem of the dealing with the ‘dangerously played ball’, is that it is a subjective judgement by the umpire. Objective criteria such as height and distance are used in only a very limited way, velocity is not mentioned at all. The plain fact is that a ball that is raised at high velocity at any player is potentially dangerous to that player, it forces her/him to respond to avoid injury, irrespective of his ability or skill to avoid or cope with the danger presented.
.
“An out-running defender at a penalty corner who runs towards the ball is a “suicide runner”, because s/he is“running down the barrel”, and should be penalised for dangerous play.”
Unless such a defending player clearly intends to use the body and not the stick to play the ball there is no offence. Terms such as ‘suicide runner’ should never have been used in this context. The first shot at goal during a penalty corner does not have to be raised or propelled from a set position, the scenario is presented is false. It is as if an out-runner were running into the path of a projectile, compulsorily fired, on a short fuse, from a static gun position – the truth is the shooter has choices and should not choose to endanger an opponent who is closing on the ball.
.
“A defender who closes on the ball when it is in the possession of an attacker who is taking a shot at the goal (or is about to) is guilty of dangerous play.”
Unless such a defending player is clearly intends to use the body and not the stick to play the ball, s/he has not committed an offence. A defender is entitled to defend and that includes closing on the ball and attempting to block the shot with the stick or tackle for the ball.
.
The relevant Rules.
9.8 Players must not play the ball dangerously or in a way which leads to dangerous play. A ball is considered dangerous when it causes legitimate evasive action by players.
9.9 Players must not intentionally raise the ball from a hit except for a shot at goal. Players are permitted to raise the ball with a flick or scoop provided it is not dangerous. A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous. If an opponent is clearly running into the shot or into the attacker without attempting to play the ball with their stick, they should be penalised for dangerous play.
9.11 Field players must not stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their body.
It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player. The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball or if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way.
13.3. l. For second and subsequent hits at the goal and for flicks, deflections and scoops, it is permitted to raise the ball to any height but this must not be dangerous. A defender who is clearly running into the shot or into the taker without attempting to play the ball with their stick must be penalised for dangerous play.
Otherwise,(that is if the defender is not attempting to play at the ball with their stick) if a defender is within five metres of the first shot at goal during the taking of a penalty corner and is struck by the ball below the knee, another penalty corner must be awarded or is struck on or above the knee in a normal stance, the shot is judged to be dangerous and a free hit must be awarded to the defending team.
The definition of a dangerously played ball is that it is “a ball that causes legitimate evasive action”. That statement alone should have been sufficient to prevent the creation of several myths, but it tells us only (and only in part) what a dangerously played ball is, not what other actions could constitute dangerous play, or even what ‘legitimate’ means (does it mean legal or genuine?) or what could possibly make any evasive action taken to avoid injury not legitimate.
These omissions have provided scope for ‘interpretation’ that have led to to various conclusions and this has been taken full advantage of. Why anyone would want to take such advantage to invert a previously accepted meaning of ‘dangerously played’ and even to remove the concept of the dangerously played ball from the game in certain circumstances, generally when what might be considered dangerous play is a shot at the goal, is outside the scope of this article.
The existence of the term ‘legitimate evasive action’ lends credence to the argument that evasive action can be legitimate in both meanings of the word i.e. necessary (or genuine) and also legal (or within the Rules).
Evasive action is not necessary, or indeed even a possibility, if a defending player is not positioned in the path of a ball that has been propelled by another player, such evasive action defines and is caused and is legitimized, by a dangerously played ball.
Being positioned in the defended goal or anywhere else (except the opponents’ goal) must be therefore be legal i.e. legitimate play, because otherwise no evasive action could ever be be legitimate and the term would not be used. Whether or not evasive action is legitimate i.e. necessary or genuine is a matter of umpire judgement, but it is also a player judgement, depending entirely on circumstances a player finds herself/ himself in. When the ball is raised high at a player at high velocity (and we here talking of a ball propelled at anything from 60 -100 mph), from within 14m, is difficult to see how an umpire could declare evasive action as unnecessary by any player at any level. (‘High’, in terms of height, could usefully be defined as an objective criteria).
It is not illegal for a defender to defend the goal either by staying in the goal on the goal-line or in front of the goal-line, nor is illegal for a defender to close down on an attacker about to shoot to try to intercept the ball with the stick or tackle for the ball with the stick, the goal could not be defended if a defender was not allowed to be in or to defend in the area between a shooter and the goal.
Legitimate evasive action is not in fact a sufficient description of a dangerously played ball when the ball is propelled at another player in a way that could endanger them, because evasive action is not always successful and because defenders may also be endangered when they have not taken or even attempted to take evasive action, either because they were physically unable to do so (lack of time to react) or because they were unaware that evasive action might be necessary. Either could be the case if a defending player was unsighted at the time the ball was propelled in their direction. It is also more than possible (very likely) that an umpire would not know if a defending player was unsighted when the ball was propelled in their direction.
I know it ‘sucks’ but the fact that it is against the Rules to propel the ball at another player in a way that endangers them, makes it much more difficult to score a goal than it would otherwise be. And playing the ball at or into the legs or feet of an opponent is not a legitimate way to ‘win’ a free or a penalty corner – in fact penalties against opponents are not (or should not be) ‘won’ (‘manufactured’) intentionally at all – passing and dribbling skills have to be developed and then used in a legitimate way.
.
Link to Index of Ruleshttp://wp.me/p3tNmd-3
I would like to make some observations about a Internet field hockey forum post :- (which is now pinned to the top of the Umpiring Section of that forum as an example of moderation in debate)
But first, here it is as written in full.
Dangerous shot on goal.
Every internet forum has had these debates, and the strong opinions have led to a deal of nastiness.
There are two extreme positions: – if it is a shot, it cannot be dangerous (any danger is the defender’s fault for being there); – the danger rules are being ignored, with too many dangerous shots allowed as goals, or injured defenders penalised with a PS.
On the occasions when the flame wars have subsidied enough to let reasonable contributors reach a consensus, that consensus has been:
- it all depends on the shot, the speed and distances involved, the skill-level of defenders and attacker, the state of play, the importance of the competition, and many other factors known only to those who were there… – at the highest levels of hockey, very little is judged as dangerous, on the assumption that defenders have the skill to take on almost any shot – … but umpires might still follow the guidance to Rules 9.9 and 13.3L, that a shot striking someone within 5 metres above the knee, can be considered dangerous – at beginning and social levels of hockey, inexperienced players must not be left feeling unsafe, and wild shots should be penalised to encourage attackers to care for safety – … so umpires can reasonably extend the ‘within 5′ to 7, 10, or even 14, and sometimes rule it ‘dangerous’ even if the ball misses everyone – at the majority of hockey in-between, it is back to the umpire’s judgement, based on experience, what they’ve read on the Internet, and discussions in the bar – … so after a game with such a decision, you’ll have this debate with a fellow umpire and a couple of other players .
******************************
I seems to be entirely reasonable doesn’t it? In fact it is a quite skilfully put together mix of truth, opinion, falsehood and contradiction, which ends with a picture of umpires and players happily chatting at the bar, an image that provides the necessary ‘feel good’ factor and general agreement of ‘everyone’ the author wants to impart.
A second look.
Every internet forum has had these debates, and the strong opinions have led to a deal of nastiness.
True, I have been on the receiving end of a great deal of this ‘nastiness’.
There are two extreme positions:
This is an extreme position.
- if it is a shot, it cannot be dangerous (any danger is the defender’s fault for being there);
An example from the 2010 WWC
The following statement is not an extreme position, it is the truth.
- the danger rules are being ignored, with too many dangerous shots allowed as goals, or injured defenders penalised with a PS.
Penalty stoke awarded
This one was ‘only’ a penalty corner. I have no idea what offence the defender was supposed to have committed.
The following sentence give the impression that reasonable contributors hold neither of the views given above – false – and that there is a consensus of opinion among reasonable people, (which by definition excludes those who hold the given ‘extreme’ views ) – this too is a false statement. On the occasions when the flame wars have subsided enough to let reasonable contributors reach a consensus, that consensus has been:
- it(whether or not a ball has been played dangerously) – all depends on the shot, the speed and distances involved, the skill-level of defenders and attacker, the state of play, the importance of the competition, and many other factors known only to those who were there… Nice mix, part true, part false, part irrelevant – and some parts missing. A closer examination:-
- it all depends on the shot, the speed and distances involved.That’s a promising start but it needed to be more precise. ‘It’ depends on the height of the shot, the speed (velocity) of it, the distance away from a player from which it was propelled, and, most importantly if it was at a player and forced self-defence.
-the skill-level of defenders and attacker, the state of play, the importance of the competition,All irrelevant as to whether or not a ball has been propelled in a dangerous way – has endangered a player.
- and many other factors known only to those who were there.
“the shot, the speed and distances involved” are also factors known only to those who ‘were there’. Other factors, such as obstruction, impeding, intimidation, sight-blocking, nature of stoke (forehand edge hit for example), can all be mentioned in written guidance for players and umpires, as acts that can lead to a dangerously played shot: it is not necessary to “be there” to know the kinds of actions that are prohibited and therefore should be watched for (umpire) or not intentionally carried out (players). For prevention prior knowledge of these things by players and coaches is essential – this is most consistently provided by written guidance in the issued rulebook , not after the event (of dangerous play) post-match in a bar, although such discussions can be helpful in individual cases.
- at the highest levels of hockey, very little is judged as dangerous, on the assumption that defenders have the skill to take on almost any shot. The near extreme view but only because it does not say “no shot” but “ very little” without explanation of the “very little” that is judged dangerous ( I think it is a shot that is going wide of the goal that may be judged dangerous – the same shot on target not so – a situation which I don’t understand and have been unable to obtain a logical explanation for), and the reason given is here different: no longer the outrageous “the defender’s fault for being there” which is usually offered(the defender cannot be called ‘at fault’ for attempting to defend and it is only possible to defend a shot at the goal from a position between the goal and the shooter), but the seemingly reasonable “on the assumption that defenders have the skill to take on almost any shot” ; the “almost” not expanded upon and what would be considered beyond the skill of players of the highest level not explained. Note that the attackers are not expected to have the skill to avoid propelling the ball high at a defender or to accept responsibility for doing so.
The absurdity of the assumption made about the skill of a defender can be demonstrated with an analogy:-
A motorist drives his car through a pedestrian-crossing while there is a pedestrian in his path and when prosecuted for dangerous driving defends doing so by claiming that the pedestrian, who was already on the crossing as he approached, should not have been there because he knew car drivers used the road. Not a defence. His next line is that the pedestrian knew that he was in a position where he could be hit by a car and also had or should have had the skill to jump out of the path of his car and avoid injury and was therefore responsible for his injury – caused it – : not a defence.
Here is an an example of what I consider to be the taking of legitimate evasive action at the highest level, the Gold Medal match of the Olympic Games. The umpire awarded a goal, I have no idea why; the shot was clearly made directly at the position of the ‘post player’ at about head height and endangered that player.
The prior positioning of a defender is reason not to propel the ball high (which needs defining) at that position i.e. at her/him but to take an alternative action. The positioning of a defender in front of the target goal does not indicate acceptance of an irresponsible – reckless – and/or dangerous action by an attacker, i.e. illegal actions. The defender accepts, as all players do, the possibility of injury because of accidental actions, miss-hits or deflections for example, but such accidental actions may still be penalised as dangerous.
The skill of the defender is irrelevant, what is relevant is the propensity of the ball to injure the player (any player) it is propelled at – which depends on the velocity, the height and also the distance from the player from which the ball is propelled – that in turn forces a player to self defence, either by trying to evade the ball to avoid injury or trying to play it with the stick, (success in either is irrelevant, the ball is still played at her/him in a dangerous way). The forcing of self-defence is critical in the judgement of a dangerously played ball – it actuall defines it – but it was omitted in the original post.
- … but umpires might still follow the guidance to Rules 9.9 and 13.3L, that a shot striking someone within 5 metres above the knee, can be considered dangerous
Guidance to Rule 9.9 reads “is considered dangerous” not “can be” (the FIH Rules Committee have declared such a stroke to be dangerous) and there is no height mentioned – so presumably a ball propelled at any height could be considered dangerous – it would certainly be incorrect to say that a ball propelled at a player below knee height cannot be dangerous. Nor is there any suggestion within the Rules that a player who is beyond 5m of the ball cannot be endangered by the way in which the ball is played. Guidance to 13.3.l, specific to the penalty corner, does not cancel out the guidance to Rule 9.9 – although the presence of both obviously causes some confusion.
Guidance Rule 9.9. A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous.
- at beginning and social levels of hockey, inexperienced players must not be left feeling unsafe, and wild shots should be penalised to encourage attackers to care for safety.True, the same can be said of all levels of hockey.
- … so umpires can reasonably extend the ‘within 5′ to 7, 10, or even 14, and sometimes rule it ‘dangerous’ even if the ball misses everyone.True, think, as an extreme example, of a shot taken on the volley at a falling ball near the edge of a crowded circle.
- at the majority of hockey in-between, it is back to the umpire’s judgement, based on experience, what they’ve read on the Internet, and discussions in the bar
- … so after a game with such a decision, you’ll have this debate with a fellow umpire and a couple of other players .
Note, no mention of the Rules of Hockey but in the absence of any guidance but that given to Rule 9.9., and with the definition of a dangerously played ball being “a ball that causes legitimate evasive action” , when umpires often interpret evasive action from players who are known to be skilled as an attempted ‘con’, the present rules relating to a dangerously played ball are hopelessly inadequate and players and coaches will seek explanation.
We are left with the subjective judgement of umpires, and that too is often hopelessly inadequate for the proper and fair protection of defending players facing an attacker in possession of the ball, especially when the umpire subscribes to the first of the “two extreme positions” – as many do.
Example: current FIH Umpires have stated on Internet hockey forums that defenders in front of the goal causes danger by their positioning, and position so with the intention of using their body to play the ball if they miss it with the stick. It is not known on what evidence or authority these assumptions are based. There is also absurdity in the claim: when there are two ‘post players’ positioned during a penalty corner are both of them causing danger at the same time, when they are more than 3m apart or is it only the one the ball is propelled at who is to blame?
Example of practice: The umpire in the following clip informs a defender in a match during the 2010 Women’s World Cup that an on-target shot at the goal could not be dangerous, and awarded a penalty corner against the defender (for being hit?) The shot, a raised edge hit from about 5m, struck the defender on the thigh.
Such umpires (and those who coach them) are dangerous to players because of these (extreme) views,they do nothing to discourage the dangerously played ball – in fact they encourage it. We can only speculate about what would have followed if during the penalty corner the umpire insisted on awarding, despite the ‘petulant’ protests of the Spanish players that the initial shot was dangerous, a defender had been injured, as Irewin of Cookstown was (fractured skull), in the EHL game shown above.
It is obvious that the dangerously played shot can no longer remain entirely a subjective decision – that is entirely the opinion of an umpire without reference to any objective criteria, if the ball is propelled at another player from more than 5m. - it all depends on the shot, the speed and distances involved and so it should but this statement is not acted upon, there is no means of making these judgements. It’s not difficult: when the ball is propelled high at a player we have one objective judgement “at a player”; added to that we could have a subjective judgement, but one to which the player defending can contribute, “at a velocity that could injure” – the defender then takes the decision to attempt to play or evade the ball. (Players are presently forced to attempt to play at the ball when a shot at the goal is made ‘through’ them, because evasion just leads to the award of a goal). Then we could have another objective judgement, height. I suggest “at above elbow height”; and finally, ‘distance’, another objective judgement.
Velocity and distance will together determine ‘time to react’ in a defensive way. Velocity and height will together determine the nature of the danger, the degree of injury that could be inflicted.
A high velocity ball propelled at a player at above elbow height would then be considered dangerous play – even if it was a shot at the goal from within the circle.
Within a day of my writing the above article someone on the hockey forum from which the original comment was taken, posted this:-
” There are already posts in other places discussing how this is completely untrue and unworkable and that the option they put forward is the only workable option.”
Which illustrates the problems we have with interpretation and opinion and bias. I have suggested an alternative approach: I did not say it was the only possible one or that the original post was completely untrue – but that it was false or mistaken in parts. I noted where it was true and where false.
It is this kind of biased, untruthful and irresponsible response (from an umpire who has previously declared he would award a penalty stroke against a player hit on the head while defending the goal on the goal-line) that leads to polarization of opinion instead of sensible debate and compromise – not that player safety should ever be compromised by the opinions of an umpire .
What criteria should be used to describe a dangerous shot is certainly open to further discussion: once it has been accepted that the present criteria – subjective judgement alone - is inadequate, which it obviously is if these decisions are prejudged i.e. are not in fact subjective at all, but predetermined irrespective of the facts in each case. Sensible discussion will however not take place.
The link below is to a typical example of an attempt (in 2010) to discuss dangerous play in connection shots raised at a penalty corner that hit a defender at head height. There are two examples given from the same tournament. It is clear from the replies given that a high shot going wide of the goal that hits a defender will be considered dangerous – but a shot that is on target will not be. No reasons for this difference of interpretation are offered, it just seems to be taken for granted. This suggests that umpires consider it an illegitimate action for a defender to defend the goal from in front of the goal or as they would put it “the defender accepts the risks”. But intentionally raising shot at – through – an opponent will endanger that opponent and is dangerous play, which is contrary to Rule, and so not an accepted risk. When the ball is intentionally raised at a player in a way that forces self-defence that player is entitled to expect the umpire to penalise the player who raises the ball at him.
Few Internet hockey forum threads have got much further than that one and there have probably been around fifty attempts since 2006 on that particular forum to explore the issue. Umpire coaches and senior umpires simply refuse either to engage at all or to give a reasonable answer to the questions raised. Those that do respond often do so just in order to prevent any discussion – as is the case in the example above. The respondent to the second incident mentioned in the thread was by the umpire involved (who also tried to ‘kill’ the topic with her first post). She acknowledges that she was wrong to award a penalty corner after a shot that was going wide of the goal hit a defender at head height, but there is no doubt at all that she would have awarded a penalty stroke if the shot had been ‘on target’ and the defender hit in the same way. Presumably the defender and not the attacker would have been seen in that case to have caused the dangerous play.
Following the death of Lizze Watkins, in Australia in May 2012, there was a call for provision for the wearing of helmets for field-hockey playing from a doctor in Perth, whose daughter plays hockey, reported in a newspaper article. The doctor said she saw and treated many hockey related head injuries from ball contacts. She also said she had written to the hockey authorities many time suggesting Rule change but was just ignored. An ill mannered reply was made to her reported comments from a hockey player. I am not in favour of the introduction of helmets for field players in hockey (I think they would lead to an even more cavalier attitude to dangerous play – as the introduction of face masks for penalty corners has) but I agree there needs to be rule change – so I replied to his comment pointing out the danger of the present interpretation in regard to the raised shot at goal, especially the drag-flick at a penalty corner. This is what he wrote in reply.
Martin Conlon penalty corners are another story all together I believe in the higher grades the posties should have to wear a mask and with saying that everyone that plays hockey know the risk and still choose to put themselves in the line of fire. Rules state everything goes in the D IF you are having a direct shot at goal if you choose to stand there knowing full well that’s the rule they are there at their own risk. It’s not a wimpy sport if you can’t deal with it don’t play it and stay at home and knit.
Rules state everything goes in the D. This guy does not know the Rules and should not be allowed to play until he has demonstrated that he does. The scary thing is I have in the past received similar comments on this subject from practicing umpires, and even those coaching novice umpires: dangerously clueless people who should not be entrusted with overseeing a hockey match.
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.
.
