A pattern of deductive reasoning consisting of two premises and a conclusion – which may be valid or invalid, depending on what conclusion is arrived at by the reasoning of the person giving the conclusion.
Example.
Premise one. All men are mortal.
Premise two. Socrates is a man.
Conclusion. Socrates is mortal.
The premises are offered as true, so the above conclusion could be challenged by a pedant on the grounds that the evidence that Socrates is a man is subjective and unproven even if Socrates asserts ‘himself’ that ‘he’ is a man and this ‘fact’ is by agreed by common consent. This moves the ‘debate’ from one about mortality to another, possibly more ambiguous area, a definition of gender. However in this case the conclusion is not that Socrates is a man – that is given as a premise – but that Socrates is mortal, and that is not in dispute. The syllogism is more accurately set up by replacing the word ‘men’ and ‘man’ in the premises with ‘human being/s’.
Premise one. All human beings are mortal.
Premise two. Socrates is a human being.
Conclusion. Socrates is mortal.
Such adjustments to wording can, if used carefully, point the way to unambiguous and logical rule statements
The problem I invented arose because, in the first premise, ‘men’ may be seen to have been used as a generic term, to denote all human beings (as in mankind), and an ambiguity is created when, in the second premise, ‘man’ appears to be gender specific i.e. to exclude women. Rational people know that women are not immortal either and may also know that the term ‘men’ may have been used in a way that includes ‘women’. (the practice is not unusual in documentation to achieve brevity and clarity; until 2004 the Rules of Hockey used ‘he’ and ‘his’ to also mean ‘she’ and ‘her’) in other words premises that are not stated but are ‘known’ need to be taken into consideration unless this is specifically forbidden. It is often useful to exclude the general ’common sense’ of a premise to achieve a communal sense of the true meaning i.e. agreement and consistency in interpretation using only what is given in text. Only a given premise wording is then initially considered. Additional facts (words) that can be seen by ‘common sense’ to be missing are, in this way, more likely to be noted as missing and included (or at least discussed before) subsequently constructed premises are finalised.
A syllogism can therefore be challenged – said to be invalid- by disputing either of the premises or, if it does not appear to be a logical deduction from accepted premises, the conclusion. In the usual course of conversation or even of writing, the syllogism with which I began the article would not be remarked upon – I got it as the example given in a dictionary definition of a syllogism – but it was possible to make a criticism of it. The syllogism given in the Oxford English Dictionary, with the definition of the word, is much more open to dispute, but that is pointed out in the OED entry with which I began this article, syllogisms may be valid or invalid. E.g:-
All dogs are animals
All animals have four legs
Therefore all dogs have four legs.
The conclusion would not be disputed by any reasonable person (who knew what a dog was) but the second premise certainly could be – dolphins and apes are but two examples of species of animal that do not have four legs. The conclusion does not follow from the premise ”Some animals have four legs” and the conclusion “Some dogs have four legs” is obviously incorrect. Presenting one true and one false premise together with an obviously true conclusion is a ‘technique’ often used to get a very dubious premise ‘accepted’. The weak premise is ‘accepted’ without much thought because the other statements are so obviously correct.
The point I am making is that the given premises, as well as the ‘deducted’ conclusion, need to be critically examined when someone is trying to ‘prove’ a point by using a syllogism – or , beyond that, using the conclusions of two syllogisms as the premises of a third…. and so on. Obviously where ‘proofs’ are being demonstrated statements that are known to be fallacious should not be accepted as premises (or accepted only as a way of disproving). The finding of flaws in premises need not be taken to the point where further criticism of the semantics or syntax would be absolutely impossible, but obvious contradictions of terms, potential ambiguities in wording, etc. should be pointed out and clarified or corrected when reasonable conclusions are looked for.
The Socrates syllogism has reasonable premises and conclusion and perhaps only a pedant would call it invalid, the one about dogs is clearly an invalid syllogism from the given premises, even if all dogs are animals and all normal dogs have four legs, because the second of the two premises cannot by itself , due to known fallacy, lead to the given conclusion and for the same reason does not assist its partner to do so.
Discussions concerning the Rules of Hockey contain many assertions and conclusions which are seemingly (or at first sight) based on deductive reasoning, but are invalid because one or more of the premises offered are fallacious or ambiguous (open to misinterpretation and therefore to misapplication), or the conclusions are not logical (rational) deductions if one or both the premises are accepted as true.
The topic. Voluntarily making body contact with the ball.
In 2004 the HRB (FIH Rules Committee) changed the Rule Guidance embedded in the ball body contact Rule from :-
13.1.2 Use of body, hands, feet by players other than goal-keepers
Players shall not:-
a. stop or catch the ball with the hand
There is nothing to prevent players using their hands to protect themselves from dangerously raised balls.
b. intentionally stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their bodies
It is not automatically an offence if the ball hits the foot or body of a player. On many occasions when a ball hits the foot or body of a player an offence will not have taken place and play should continue.
It is only an offence if the ball hits the foot or body of a player and that player:
• moved intentionally into the path of the ball, or
• made no effort to avoid being hit, or
• was positioned with the clear intention to stop the ball with the foot or body, or
• gains benefit.
To this
9.10 Field players must not stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their body.
It is not an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player, unless that player or their team benefits from this.
No offence is committed if the ball hits the hand holding the stick but would otherwise have hit the stick.
removing the word ‘intentionally’ from the Rule.
Then in 2007 the word ‘voluntarily’ was added to the Rule Guidance and ‘gains benefit’ was removed. (*) Which gives the current (2013) Rule.
9.11 Field players must not stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their body.
It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player. The player
only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball or if they
position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way.
It is not an offence if the ball hits the hand holding the stick but would otherwise have hit the stick.
It was not revealed why ‘intentionally’ was dropped from the Rule or why a few years later ‘voluntarily’ was added to the Rule Guidance. Perhaps it was because dropping ‘intentionally’ completely was later considered to have been too big a step or a mistake and ‘voluntarily’ was thought a suitable synonym to replace it without loss of ‘face’. Who knows? But there was a problem; umpires had quickly, post 2004, become accustomed to penalising any and all ball/body contact (some had always done so because the fact of such contact is a very easy objective criteria, it requires observation but little judgement) and they were reluctant to go back to the difficulty and uncertainty of looking for intention or voluntary contact.
(*) Three weeks after the activation date of the 2007- 09 Rules of Hockey a ‘note’ was posted on the FIH website which announce that ‘gains benefit’ would continue to apply as it had in 2006, so ‘gains benefit’ was not in effect deleted until January 2009 i.e. on issue of the 2009-11 Rules of Hockey sans ‘gained benefit’ or any substitute for it. ‘Gains benefit’ was not restored in 2011-13 and has not been restored to the current Rules 2013 – 15.
The Discussion
Debate about the meaning of ‘voluntarily’ resulted in the opinions below – expressed over two separate threads, made six months apart, on a hockey related website – from an International level umpire, who uses the tag Bondy. Aside from the opening post I have reproduced only the posts that Bondy put up – most of them contain quotes in italics from other contributors which help a little to hang them together.
The first thread, from November 2011, was entitled Incidental foot.
JMZevans (The opening post)
I have scanned through the forum for some clarity on an old classic but would like to confirm a decision from the weekend. Situation as follows:
Attacker driving along the baseline and hits the ball towards the top of the D. Near the top it hits a defenders foot. Had the defender missed it then the ball would have travelled uninterrupted all the way to the sideline. Attackers shout for a PC, defenders shout that the ball would have gone off and would have been their side line ball.
Which is the correct decision??
.
Bondy
redumpire said: I assumed the ball hadn’t gone off the sideline and was still with the defender whose foot it had hit, in which case it’s play on…
Surely this would be a PC? It hit the defender’s foot, and he gained possession because of it. I know that he would have had the sideline hit, had it not hit his foot – but in the time that it takes for the ball to get to the sideline and for the defender to set up to take the hit, the attackers would have had the opportunity to set up their press. To me, that means that the defender has gained advantage from the foot in the circle, therefore you’ve got no option but to award a PC.
.
Bondy
redumpire said: Fair point, Bondy; let’s put it another way. If the ball hit a player’s foot somewhere near the middle of the pitch as the ball was on a trajectory to go over the sideline and that player was in acres of space, would you award a FH? I wouldn’t; so why would I award a PC?
I completely agree that if you wouldn’t award a FH in midfield, you shouldn’t award a PC, but I believe that it has to be a FH. The defender is advantaged by getting the ball ‘right now’ in central field position, instead of getting a sideline hit in a few seconds, which would give the opposition time to set up a defensive press.
deegum said: Sorry alex, but Justin has said, there has been no offence at all. Therefore no FHA, PC, PS or anything. In fact the defence might sometimes gain an advantage,, but play on, still no offence.
I honestly don’t see how there’s no offence here – am I missing something that everyone else is thinking? The defender has stopped the ball with his foot, and in doing so, has gained an advantage (and therefore disadvantaged the opposition). Offence by the defender. It happens to be in the circle, so it’s a PC.
To those who say that the defender hasn’t ‘voluntarily’ stopped the ball with his foot, he’s at least 15m from where the ball was hit, and one would assume he’s watching the ball. Therefore he’s had plenty of time to get out of the way, or use his stick to trap it… and because he’s chosen to do neither, it’s a voluntary (subtle difference from ‘intentional’) use of the foot. I know it’s a horrible soft PC, but I honestly think that you have to give it.
.
Bondy
redumpire said: We’ft have to have a good pre-match chat if ever we umpire together,,, or, you’l! have to change your views if you’re ever umpiring when I’m TD !!
I think we should just hope that the defenders know how to trap!!
Incidentally – Diligent, I’m right with you that if the ball HAD gone out, it’s definitely a sideline hit attack, because hitting the foot has led to the defender losing possession. I don’t believe that there’s any legitimate argument for PC in that situation… as opposed to when it stays in, there are two valid schools of thought (ie, PC or play on) – I’ll argue black and blue that it needs to be a PC, but those who argue play on have also got a valid argument (just slightly less valid, IMHO)
.
Bondy
Hacker said: Bondy, does your decision after if the “foot” happens at the top of the D with no attackers dose {as Diligent says above) or if it’s closer to the goaf line and attackers a bit nearer?
No – because of the foot, the defender gets possession in space and therefore the ability to start a counter-attack, and easily attack down the centre or either side of the field. If it hadn’t hit the foot, they’ve still got possession, but it’s at the sideline, which means that the attackers have extra time to set a press and pressure the defence.
.
The following July there was a discussion about the correct decision if the ball was deliberately played into contact with an opponent and the meaning of the word ‘voluntarily’ was raised again. Bondy had become more extreme in his view and also more certain that he was right to penalise any ball/body contact (unless opponents could play on with advantage - were not disadvantaged ) in spite of the fact that the discussion was about contacts intentionally forced (*) by opponents and ‘gained benefit’ or ‘gained advantage’, which he quotes, had finally ‘disappeared’ from the Rules of Hockey more than three years earlier.
(*) After January 2011 forcing an opponent into a breach of Rule was deleted as an offence in itself.
.
Bondy
I believe that Justin, et al, are confusing “voluntary” and “involuntary” with “unintentional” and “intentional”. To my mind, a foot becomes “voluntary” when a player puts himself in a position where there is the potential that they will play the ball with the foot, ie – a defender comes to tackle an attacker, and ends up stopping the ball with his foot. He hasn’t intentionally done it, but because he’s put himself into position knowing there’s a chance he’ll kick it, it’s voluntary and therefore a free hit attack.
Saying “Well, I tried to stop it hitting my foot because I tried to use my stick to make the tackle/trap/dribble/whatever” doesn’t make it involuntary – you’ve still put yourself in a position where there’s a reasonable chance of the ball hitting you – it’s unintentional, but it’s not involuntary. Frankly, any other interpretation is a fundamental change to the game, and goes against the whole principle that hockey stick and ball game.
I do agree that there’s a reasonable argument that the “find a foot” incidents are being blown incorrectly… but I also think that everyone expects it to be blown that way, and as far as I’m concerned, until a specific directive from FIH that the way it’s being blown is wrong (and the removal of manufactured fouls is a pretty strong indication that that’s not gonna happen any time soon), I’m going to keep givin what everyone’s happy with and not play-ons that everyone thinks are wrong.
From those five posts it is possible to construct a large number of pairs of related premises to construct syllogisms and reach conclusions. The problem will be consistency, because many of the statements Bondy makes are contradicted by others. Even the meaning of ‘everybody’ has changed significantly between first mention and last.
Using directly conflicting pairs is not entirely pointless as it is as useful to know what is not valid as what is. but premises that are different but supportive of each other (or at least not opposed) will also have to be found. The premises and conclusions from opinion and ‘practice’ (player expectation etc.) can then be paired with related phrase statements from the Rules of Hockey. First it is necessary to list individual premises from the statements he made.
That could take a week. It’s an exercise a reader might like to try for themselves. A start could be made by determination of the meaning of the word ‘voluntarily’ in the context of the Rule Guidance, weighed against the asserted ’acceptance of risk’ and the imposition of penalty (How does one justify penalty as a deterrent when the penalised action has been forced?) .
An aside. It needs to be borne in mind that the ball/body contact Rule relates to all ball/body contact, not just to ball contact made with the feet. When assessing ‘acceptance of risk’ and ‘voluntarily’ one has to be aware of the possibility of the sort of incident shown in the video. The defender ’knew’ as he ran towards the ball, that it was possible that the player in possession of the ball would propel it towards his head: would it therefore be reasonable for the umpire to penalise the player hit? Bondy “To my mind, a foot becomes “voluntary” when a player puts himself in a position where there is the potential that they will play the ball with the foot“. Is that reasonable? Is being hit with the ball ‘playing it’ if the contact is not intentional?
What is different about the actions of a defender running towards a player in possession of the ball when the defender is hit by the propelled ball on the head or upper body rather than on the foot? The answer is likely to be “Nothing”, the difference is in the action of the player propelling the ball – he raises it. When is responsibility for his own voluntary action to be accepted by the player propelling the ball? Always? Never? Sometimes? E.g. only outside the shooting circle even if the ball is flicked – a legal stroke in any open play? (The justification for raising a hit at a defender in the circle is often that it is legal to raise a shot hit at the goal – but clearly, for fairness and safety, something more than just the legality of the stroke used is required of the player propelling the ball.) Debate concerning forced ball/foot contact will always tend to shift towards arguments concerning the forcing of self-defence (or endangerment), playing the ball towards an opponent’s head being an extreme example of playing the ball at any part of an opponent. So how about a position, more than 5m from the ball – and possibly in the circle – when a defender is hit on the head with the ball – who is responsible – one player, both, neither?
A dictionary definition:
Voluntary adj.
1. Done or undertaken of one’s own free will: a voluntary decision to leave the job.
2. Acting or done willingly and without constraint or expectation of reward: a voluntary hostage; voluntary community work.
3. Normally controlled by or subject to individual volition: voluntary muscle contractions.
4. Capable of making choices; having the faculty of will.
5. Supported by contributions or charitable donations rather than by government appropriations: voluntary hospitals.
6. Law a. Without legal obligation or consideration: (consideration can be viewed as a legal term for payment; with money or goods or services) a voluntary conveyance of property.
b. Done deliberately; intentionally: voluntary manslaughter.
These adjectives mean being or resulting from one’s own free will.
Voluntary implies the operation of unforced choice: “Ignorance, when it is voluntary, is criminal” (Samuel Johnson).
Intentional applies to something undertaken to further a plan or realize an aim: ”I will abstain from all intentional wrongdoing and harm” (Hippocratic Oath.
Deliberate stresses premeditation and full awareness of the character and consequences of one’s acts: taking deliberate and decisive action.
Wilful implies deliberate, headstrong persistence in a self-determined course of action: a wilful waste of time.
Willing suggests ready or cheerful acquiescence in the proposals or requirements of another: ”The first requisite of a good citizen … is that he shall be able and willing to pull his weight” (Theodore Roosevelt).
What is meant by the asserted ‘acceptance of risk’, and whether or not it is actually relevant to the application of this Rule, might also be considered.
Discussion in ‘Umpiring Corner’ started by Cookie,Mar 6, 2013.
Cookie
I have a feeling this may have been discussed but i couldn’t find it.
In the guidance to 13.3l it talks about if a defender is within 5m of the first shot at a PC and is hit below the knee its another PC and if above the knee its FHD.
My question is whether that is really meant to cover the runner at the top of the circle – or does it apply to the first shot if it is less than 5m from goal.
So I actually had the scenario on Saturday where a scrappy PC resulted in the first shot being a flick from about 4 yards out which hit a defender in his midriff. He was just off the line and so i am asking should that be FHD under the guidance or PS?
Similarly had it hit him below the knee then a strict reading of the guidance would suggest its a PC and not a PS – which surely can’t be intended.
jayjay
yes, this is really meant to be in reference to the first runner, though you are right that that isn’t actually specifically said. the idea behind this guidance is that a ball which strikes someone above the knees who is closer than 5 metres to the taker is supposedly going over the goal, rather than travelling on a path that would score a goal.
in your situation you should simply consider danger. and the guidance of one rule does not overrule the text of the rule of another. so if it hit his feet on the line and stopped the probable scoring (or actually the certain scoring of a goal, barring a dog materialising out of thin air on the line) of a goal, that that should be a PS, in accordance with 12.4 a. no doubt the usual suspects will tell you to simply “play on” as the person didnt stop the ball with their body “voluntarily”. just apply common sense to the situation and you’ll be fine.
*********************
I am not one of the usual suspects, I am guilty as charged, but not only would I say that there was no offence by the defender, if the contact was not made “voluntarily”, I would also say the first instance described was in any event a dangerous play offence by the attacker. I would add that in the case of a hit below the knee, even thought there is a very obvious benefit gained by the defender for his team – i.e. preventing the ball entering the goal, it is not now possible to invoke the ‘gained benefit exception to “not done voluntarily” because that exception has been deleted.
There should of course be a ‘gains unfair advantage exception’ when a shot is not dangerous according to Rule 13.3.l. or Rules 9.8 and 9.9 – but there isn’t – “them’s the Rules as they are written in 2013″. ”Disadvantaged opponents” is of course only applicable when there has been an offence, the competitors in a hockey match spend the entire game legitimately trying to disadvantage each other. Disadvantaging an opponent is not of it self either a breach of Rule or an offence.
The assertion that Rule 13.3.l is meant to be in reference only to a ball propelled at a first runner must be rejected. There is no freedom for the attackers in Rule 13,3,k to strike a first hit shot as high as they wish if it is not struck at or past an out-running defender – a pass to the injector does not free the injector to then make an above knee height hit shot – why should the Rules that pertain in the penalty corner situation be any different for a first shot that is flicked if it is not flicked immediately from the top of the circle but taken closer to the goal and then flicked?
The second incident in the clip below is fairly similar to the one described in the opening post. The shot is made from around 4m and hits the defender just below the throat. Fortunately it was not made at the maximum velocity the shooter was capable of, because it was made off the front foot, and the defender was not injured, but the shot was certainly contrary to the Rules of Hockey – within 5m and raised to above knee height at an opponent. I strongly dispute the assertion or assumption made, that Rule 13.3.l applies only when a ball is propelled at an out-runner near the top of the circle. Penalising an above knee height flick made from within 5m of an opponent is also completely compatible with the Guidance given in Rule 9.9. concerning the raising of the ball with a flick at a player within 5m in any phase of play (no height limit given) - so one way or another, raising the ball at an opponent who is within 5m is, by Rule, considered dangerous play.
The incident in the International Match is a lot more difficult. The shot is legal in that it is made from beyond 5m – so no height limit is aplicable. The defender tries to play the ball with his stick. I see no evidence that he played it with his body intentionally, but voluntarily? Who knows? I am uneasy when I see a penalty stroke given when the circumstances and reasons for awarding it are less than completely clear and the actions of the player hit are not very obviously contrary to Rule. It should be noted that the Australians asked for a video referral citing a dangerously played shot. Ifit were a Rule, that an on target shot at goal could not be dangerous, the match umpire could not reasonably have put the question to the video umpire ( unnecessarily delaying the game) when the answer would have been a foregone conclusion.
The first incident on the video clip, the international Match, is an example where the playing of the ball at an opponent at above elbow height being considered a dangerous play offence would make the task of the umpire easier and the application of Rule fairer. Should the shot be too high and of a velocity that could injure anyone hit with it, it is penalised, if it is not above elbow height (sternum) and is prevented from entering the goal by a field player other than with the stick – penalty stroke.
************************
shipstontkdI take this guidance to mean any runners or defenders in the D, however a defender on the line is a completely different kettle of fish. He/she knows the risks they are taking being on the line and would suggest that they would expect the ps in most cases. As a matter of interest what was your call on Sat?
DavidBurns
shipstontkd said: I take this guidance to mean any runners or defenders in the D, however a defender on the line is a completely different kettle of fish.
So you dont take the guidance to mean ANY runner or defender in the D, a defender on the line is still a defender in the circle.
DavidBurns
jayjay said: yes, this is really meant to be in reference to the first runner,
Do you use this for strikes at goal or just dragflicks?
A hit striking someone just below the knee at 4.5m would more than likely be passing the line above bb height. would you still apply the guidance or blow it for the hit being too high?
Resslys Agent likes this.
Diligent
Blow it: would be too high if it had reached the goal line.
jayjay
DavidBurns: as you can see, this guidance is in regards to rule 13.3 l, thus does not apply to the first shot at goal if this is a hit, that’s covered by 13.3 k. while you could therefore apply it to subsequent shots at goal that are hits, i think the guidance really is only truly useful when applied to the first shot that isnt a hit when a defender is charging it down at the top of the D. for all other situations you can simply use your common sense to apply the danger rule.
DavidBurns
Ta much
deegum
JJ said: no doubt the usual suspects will tell you to simply “play on” as the person didn’t stop the ball with their body “voluntarily”.
This suspect won’t this time.
JayJay said: in your situation you should simply consider danger……,
And
as you can see, this guidance is in regards to rule 13.3 l, thus does not apply to the first shot at goal if this is a hit
JayJay, may I, very politely, with no hostility etc., say you are simply wrong in this case.:
If a defender is within 5m of the first shot, and is struck by the ball, no goal can be scored. regardless of how long after the ball is injected it is taken, or the type of stroke, or from how far out from goal, or how hard, or soft, or how high, or low, the contact is. [Retake PC or FHD are the options]
13.3.l lf a defender is within five metres of the first shot at goal during the taking of a penalty corner and is struck by the ball below the knee…
Plain unambiguous statement that could hardly be any clearer, a statement that in no way modifies the requirements or Guidance of 13.3.k
From the OP
first shot being a flick from about 4 yards out which hit a defender in his midriff.
There’s also rule 9.9
Players are permitted to raise the ball with a flick or scoop provided it is not dangerous. A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous
Multiple posts merged by moderator – Deegum please try to sort out your browser problem.
Resslys Agent
Going against guidance and using triganometry, if it hits below shin pad within 5 from a at the top of the D from a shot that is hit, then chances are it is going above the 18 inches of the backboard!
However, as we can’t always determine speed which will affect balls trajectory then we should use the guidance.
Diligent
Just as plain and unambiguous a statement is the note to 13.3k:
If the first shot at goal is a hit and the ball is, or will be, too high crossing the goal line it must be penalised…
It might strike a defender below the knee, but if it was rising to cross the line above 460mm, that’s a FHD.
deegum
Sorry about the ” multiple posts” folks. They didn’t show up at my end, simply disappeared into the ether, I didn’t know I had that particular problem.
jayjay
deegum, i was simply making the point that if its a hit, we apply the guidance for what happens when the first shot at goal at a PC is a hit, and when its a flick, we apply the guidance of what happens when the first shot at goal at a PC is a flick. seemed simple enough to me.
you’ll find i was in no way making a reference towards the scenario in the OP, as i had already said, regard danger.
*********************
The two questions:-
He was just off the line and so i am asking should that be FHD under the guidance or PS?
Answer Free ball to defence for dangerous play, there is no justification whatsoever for a penalty stroke.
Similarly had it hit him below the knee then a strict reading of the guidance would suggest its a PC and not a PS – which surely can’t be intended.
Answer. During a penalty corner the Rules clearly mandate the award of another penalty corner if a defender is hit below the knee with a shot taken from less than 5m.
In open play “Play on” – there are reasonable grounds to penalise when the shot is a second or subsequent shot or is made in open play, even when the ball/body contact was accidental and unavoidable by the defender, a goal has been prevented by illicit means (an action that would be an offence if done intentionally), but in the absence of intention and of a gains benefit exception to the ‘voluntarily’ Guidance, there no longer exists a Rule justification to do so. Someone ought to inform the FIH RC: perhaps a National Umpiring Association should do that. It is not reasonable for umpires to be substituting their ‘common sense’ for Rule six years after a deletion has thrown up such a frequently occurring problem. But the last thing wanted is a return to the ‘blanket’ “gained benefit” where every ball/body contact is assumed to be of benefit or to disadvantage opponents and therefore open to penalty – in fact it would be better not to penalise foot/ball contact at all than to return to a situation where an umpire can find reason to penalise all such contacts, because many would do just that – some still do - thus encouraging attackers to force such contacts (especially as there is now no Rule which specifically forbids the forcing of a ball/body contact onto an opponent if the ball is not played in a dangerous way i.e. the ball is played into an opponent’s feet).
It is fair that the forcing of a ball/foot contact be no longer regarded as an offence if – and only if – foot/ball contact be no longer regarded as an offence. This arrangement makes intent irrelevant. That might be workable with a ‘gained unfair advantage exception’, applicable only when a certain goal was prevented after a legal (non dangerous) shot or a player in possession of the ball made foot contact with it. Dangerous play that results in ball/body contact by an opponent should of course be penalised as dangerous play – that is not happening at the moment when the dangerous play (a raised ball) is a shot at (or ‘through’) field-players defending their own goal, often not even, as can be seen in the video example, when the criterion – above knee height at an opponent within 5m – clearly applies.
Rules of Hockey. Deletions. The Offence of Forcing. The Gains Benefit exception clause.
There have been two significant deletions from the Rules of Hockey since 2006. The first, the ‘gains benefit’ exception clause from the Rule Guidance to Rule 9.11 (the ball/body contact rule). A note on the FIH website apparently initiated by the (then) Chair of the Umpires Committee, postponed the deletion until the expiry of the 2007-9 Rules of Hockey. see http://wp.me/pKOEk-xj Post January 2009, with the issue of a new rulebook sans ‘gains benefit’ , the deletion has to be accepted to have taken place, especially since it has not ‘re-surfaced’ in any subsequent issue of the Rules of Hockey.
The second, is the deletion of the offence of forcing (that is the forcing of an opponent into a technical breach of Rule) as an offence in itself, which took place in 2011.
‘Forcing’ is :- 1) The forcing of a body/ball contact, generally a foot/ball contact by playing the ball at an opponent from short range and/or at high velocity such that a contact could not be avoided by the player hit. The forcing of self-defence – legitimate evasive action – by such an action, defines a dangerously played ball.. 2) The forcing of an ‘obstruction’, again an action carried out by a player in possession of the ball, the ball holder generally pushing the ball to the far side of an opponent and then running into that opponent claiming that the opponent obstructed the direct path to the ball.
The illicit forcing of self-defence (dangerous play) and of an unintended ball/body contact have been either specifically prohibited actions or actions which should not result in penalty against the player hit with the ball, within the the Rules of Hockey beyond living memory. The gaining of an advantage or an unfair benefit has a more chequered history, having been deleted or omitted at least three times in the past twenty-five years.
These are from the 1990 rule book.
A player shall not:- 12.1 (e) hit wildly into an opponent or play or raise or kick (goalkeepers) the ball in such a way as to be dangerous in itself, or likely to lead to dangerous play or play the ball intentionally into an opponent’s foot, leg or body.
12.1. a) stop or deflect the ball on the ground or in the air with any part of the body TO HIS OR HIS TEAM’S ADVANTAGE.
The illicit forcing of obstruction has been penalised since the early 1990′s as a barging offence but was not much penalised before then.
Examples of forcing.
The Dutch player was awarded a free-ball.
This is a very unusual occurance – it might reasonablely be called an isolated incident and should have ‘earned’ at least a (long) yellow card, not a free ball.
.
A penalty corner was awarded against the team of the player hit with the ball.
The penalising of a forced ball/foot/leg contact is so common and ‘accepted’ ‘expected’, that not penalising such a contact would be an unusual and isolated incident.
The deletion of both ‘gains benefit’ and ‘forcing’ are obviously grave errors of judgement on the part of first the FIH HRB and then the (renamed) FIH Rules Committee. Both of these areas needed further clarification and amendment; complete deletion should not have been contemplated. The deletions have caused great confusion and not a little mischief. The text below is from a web-site that at one time ran a forum for hockey players and umpires. The confusion and the mischief are evident. Only one post has been omitted, the poster himself declaring it ‘off topic’.
The posts have been assembled by ‘copy and paste’, only one alteration to the wording has been made, a name, where a quote was incorrectly ascribed by the poster.
The topic of the thread was “ What you look out for and what you do about attackers intentionally pushing the ball onto a defenders foot in the D?”
Some of the contributors to it didn’t seem to be aware of the topic being discussed. In the posts that follow there is clearly little understanding of the difference between – allowing play to continue after an offence has been committed because the side offended against can play on with advantage (which an umpire is obliged to do) – and not allowing play to continue, (penalising) because an unfair advantage has been obtained due to an unintentional breach of Rule 9.11 – or awareness of the fact, that due to the deletion of the gains benefit exception clause, applying a penalty against a player hit with the ball, when the contact is forced i.e. not made voluntarily, is no longer a possibility within the Rules in any circumstances.
The Members of the FIH Rules Committee and the FIH Umpiring ought to read this ‘discussion’ thread. It is an opportunity for salutatory lessons to be learned about drafting clear Rule and Rule Guidance and letting ‘interpretation’ out of control and into the ‘hands’ of individuals who are ……………. let the reader decide.
****
The Posts.
Dan Quinton Unfortunately Justin’s thread on ‘foot in the D not always being a PC’ is no longer open to replies – hence a new thread. Can you more experienced umpires please advise on what you look out for and what you do about attackers intentionally pushing the ball onto a defenders foot in the D. I am still struggling with the fact that players always expect a PC to be given if the ball hits a defenders foot in D, whatever happens. kaiwawao The simple answer is that you can’t do anything about the “manufactured foul” as the rule against it was deleted a little while back. Your only consideration now is whether there was any danger – you cannot penalise an attacker for putting the ball onto a foot in the D.
A slightly longer view I would add that is yes, you can certainly argue for a play on or no foul especially if the ball was going to go out of play were it not for the contact. Indeed if it does go out anyway you could then give a LC but you’d struggle to convince most players at most levels to READ the rules let alone know all the amendments that have happened in the years since they last looked at the book so your life will be easier to give a PC I’m sure there are plenty of umpires who consider the removal unfortunate due to the the way it has legitimised the lazy players “winning” a PC because they “skilfully” managed to put the ball onto the foot of a defender when a pass or a shot would be more attractive or even more logical play.
Hacker Not sure I would agree. For me if there is no movement by the defender to actively use their foor OR if the defender hasn’t IMO deliberately position their feet to block the ball AND there is no attacker positioned to play the ball (it’s no a legitimate pass) then its play on. I was quite a heavy user of manufactured foul so mourn its passing). Dan Quinton thanks kaiwawao – as someone relatively new to umpiring (me that is) are you saying that there used to be a rule to prevent ‘manufactured fouls’ in the D? When and why was it removed? I dont see the logic as it seems so easy to do in the D and get a short for nothing. Gold, I probably do not come into the category of what Dan Quinton means by “more experienced umpire” but I will still offer a view If the ball is played (say by the attacker) intentionally onto the (defender’s) foot then the attacker has not been disadvantaged (he has chosen to play it there) and consequently no foul has occurred i.e. “play on”. Of course, it is often difficult to determine intention so I think most umpires would apply this interpretation only (if at all) when they are convinced that this was the attacker’s intention (possibly judging this by the actions of the attacker after he has played the hall and / or whether it could have been intended as a pass to another attacker). Another line of argument in favour of “play on” is that in order for an offence to occur the defender has to have “voluntarily” played the ball with his feet (or positioned himself with the intention of doing so). The word “voluntarily” is not the same as “intentionally” but seems capable of various interpretations; some argue that any player attempting to tackle a player with the ball is doing so voluntarily and is therefore likely to be penalized if their the ball makes contact with their feet; I find it difficult to agree with that construction and think that it should be interpreted so that a player who could not reasonably avoid being hit by the ball, should not be penalized. It is still subjective as to whether a player could have avoided being hit by the ball but when the ball is played at close range directly onto a stationary defender’s foot (especially at an unexpected angle) then I think that call can be made – and should be if it is clearly intentional. nerd_is_the_word I think the easiest way to blow the foot rule these days is to look at one simple thing: what would have happened if the foot wasn’t there. As kaiwawao has said, if the ball was goign to go off the backline, or would otherwise have benefited the defence more than the attack then play on. otherwise PC. One of the things that I and many umpires now use is to yell in a big loud voice something like, “keep playing” or similar and encourage the attack to continue in order to avoid having to blow a PC for something like this. johnreiss as has been said, there’s now no such thing as a manufactured foul. Either the defender’s foot gained him an advantage or it didn’t. If it did (eg stopped the ball going to another attacker, its a pc. If it merely brushed his foot with no benefit (no attacker within playing distance)= no offence = play on.
kaiwawao The rule was changed in the rule book effective from 1st January. 2011
The Rule which used to say that “players must not force an opponent into offending unintentionally” is deleted because any action of this sort can be dealt with under other Rules. The rulebook for the previous period had the rule worded as:
9. I5 Players must not force an opponent into offending unintentionally. Playing the ball clearly and intentionally into any part of an opponent’s body may be penalised as an attempt to manufacture an offence.
Forcing an opponent to obstruct (often emphasised by running into an opponent or by waving the stick) must also be penalised.The cynical view would be that it was deleted as it was not blown often. Comments that were on FHF previously (might have been deleted now the board software was changed) suggested especially at the highest levels umpires could not judge the intent of the attacker so could not penalise them. It’s a shame it was deleted as it’s clear that the manufactured foul cannot be penalised using any other part of the rulebook.
Gold nerd_is_the_word said: I think the easiest way to blow the foot rule these days Is to took at one simple thing: what would have happened If the foot wasn’t there.
I agree with this simple approach, in so far as it goes. However, it doesn’t specifically deal with the situation where the ball is played intentionally onto the defender’s foot (assuming a material contact) – unless you are also prepared to say (in appropriate circumstances) that the defender has not gained an advantage because the attacker has given away the possession and control that he previously had. I would be grateful for any views on whether such an approach is generally adopted – and, if not, the reason(s) for not doing so.
nerd_is_the_word Gold, that’s exactly what I am looking at. If its played into the defenders feet, was there an attacker behind the defender who would have received the pass? would the attacker have had enough room to regather the ball?or would the ball simply have rolled off the back line for a 16? as far as the attacker gaining material advantage, its not about the attacker losing control, its about whether the defender has made their life easier by stopping the ball illegally. Bondy A lot of philosophical debate could be had on this topic, and as we know there’ll be some very strongly held opinions on both sides. I want to add one practical point though, from my experience of game management at a high level. If a fullback is expecting a PC to be given, the odds are that a PC is going to be the “right” decision for the game – and not giving one, regardless of how you view the technicalities of the rules, is just going to needlessly annoy one team, and make the rest of the game harder for you.
chrisberry2k I’ve found that normally when you do give a LC instead of a PC once the defender’s asked “that hit a foot isn’t it a short” and you reply “where was the advantage?” – after a bit of head scratching you’ll gt a lot of agreement. You just need to make sure that you’re in the right position to be able to make that call. Easy if it’s played in to a foot with reasonable force then goes off the back. If it stays in play it gets far more hazy both in terms of the decision and potential agreement from the offence! pogoref I’m still trying to convince players and some fellow umpires that a LC is the correct decision where no advantage has been gained. As I posted on a thread some time ago, a more senior umpire stopped the game in order to speak to me and when I stuck to my decision he described it as a “brave decision”. Nij
Kaiwawao said The Rule which used to say that “players must not force an opponent into offending unintentionally” is deleted because any action of this sort can be dealt with under other Rules.
Its a shame It was deleted as it’s dear that the manufactured foul cannot be penalised using any other part of the rulebook.
That’s not what the first sentence is supposed to mean. There is no intent to penalise manufacturing a foul any more, which is what you take it to imply – it merely states that we are not to penalise the manufacturing of a foul as a foul itself, and whatever would have previously been treated under the manufactured foul rule, is now dealt with by any other rule that applies. Or, if no other rule applies, then we are to play on. So what would have previously been a deliberately played into the foot, is now just a foot. We don’t use the ‘manufactured foul’ rule – we use the ‘no playing ball with your foot or body’ rule. If an attempt to manufacture a foul is something likely to create dangerous play, then rules against danger are the obvious choice and readily available; if the manufactured foul does not create a disadvantage to the team who manufactured it, then we simply play on as per advantage rules.
pogoref While I apply the same interpretation as others, I do not consider putting the ball onto an opponent’s foot as being skillful. I would suggest that on most occasions danger will not be an issue but disadvantage will be because the ball is likely to stop or the defender gain possession. To me, this deliberate act is against the spirit of the rules and is a form of cheating. It is particularly galling when having to reward this action with a PC. However, all players expect the current interpretation so I will continue like everyone else.
kaiwawao
Nij said: That’s not what the first sentence is supposed to mean. There is no intent to penalise manufacturing a foul any more, which is what you take it to imply – it merely states that we are not to penalise the manufacturing of a foul as a foul itself, and whatever would have previously been treated under the manufactured foul rule, is now dealt with by any other rule that applies. Or, if no other rule applies, then we are to play on. So what would have previously been a deliberately played into the foot, is now just a foot. We don’t use the ‘manufactured foul’ rule – we use the ‘no playing ball with your foot or body’ rule. If an attempt to manufacture a foul is something likely to create dangerous play, then rules against danger are the obvious choice and readily available; if the manufactured foul does not create a disadvantage to the team who manufactured it, then we simply play on as per advantage rule.
I’d be interested to know who at the FIH you have spoken to who can confirm that Nij as I’m assuming you are not just stating your opinion in such as way that it sounds like official guidance.
If the rules were actually interpreted like that, it would at least encourage skilful play and probably more attacking, more attractive hockey as attackers would soon realise they have to use their ability to shoot or use intelligent passing especially when used with the current rule on body contact which advises not to penalise unless the defender used their body to play the ball or put their body in the way to stop the ball.
Unfortunately all that has happened with this rule change was to legitimise the use of ball to foot as a tactic for gaining a PC in the D even when there is no advantage or disadvantage from the contact.
Diligent kaiwawao said: all that has happened with this rule change was to legitimise the use of ball to foot as a tactic for gaining a PC in the D even when there is no advantage or disadvantage from the contact.
Correct, except that many umpires will play the advantage (no disadvantage). And you’re correct that a lot of people saw the change as ‘unfortunate’ . But it’s 2013, and those are the 2013 Rules.
ToPpS I know at tournaments, we’re briefed that attackers have to “EARN” their short corners! As other members have pointed out, if the the defender has gained an advantage from having the ball touch their foot in the circle/D, then it’s a short corner. If they have NOT gained an advantage then it’s a play on.
Granted you need either the experience or the confidence (balls) to sell that to the players, as they are conditioned to expect the short corner. Blow it, don’t blow it but be consistent in your decisions throughout the match and you should be fine. Keely likes this
Redumpire Can I ask a question about the reverse situation? If a defender has the ball in a tight spot in the circle and deliberately plays the ball onto an attacker’s foot in an attempt to win a free hit and so get out of the tight spot, what do we think should be blown? I’m pretty sure I’d blow for a FHD 99% of the time….
Bondy, Nij, keely like this
Porter There is a school of thought which says that if a forward is clever and skilful enough to put the ball on a defender’s foot, then the defender should be clever and skilful enough to be able to defend his own feet and prevent this happening. Does this also apply the other way around, as indicated in Red’s post above?
kaiwawao
Nij said: If the FIH wanted players who manufacture offences to be penalised, they would not have removed the single specific rule that targets the manufacturing of offences. It’s not a huge leap of logic to figure that, since they have actively taken out any reference to penalising manufacturing offences and have told us to deal with such situations under other rules, then we should a) stop looking to penalise the manufacturing of offences purely on that basis, and b) look at what other rules apply to the situation in its absence. In this case, it is particularly those on the ball hitting feet and, as with just about everything in modern hockey, the advantage concept.
So basically in other words, no, you don’t have any official guidance that your view on what this sentence means is what the FIH intended, you’ve just assumed your view is correct.
The note says:
The Rule which used to say that “players must not force an opponent into offending unintentionally” is deleted because any action of this sort can be dealt with under other Rules.
By the same sort of circular logic you employed, I could quite easily point out that as the FIH didn’t make the note ‘The Rule which used to say that “players must not force an opponent into offending unintentionally” is deleted because we no longer consider this to be an offence’ then I must be right.
I’m not getting into a debate on semantics, if you can get an official note from an FIH source to confirm this I will happily accept that, currently you are just writing several paragraphs of text to gloss over the fact you are stating your opinion.
Porter- if a defender is caught out by an attacker’s speed and is running alongside them in the D with the attacker closer to the backline/goal with obvious passing or shooting options available and the attacker suddenly spins and plays the ball onto the defender’s foot, is that something you feel the defender could reasonably have expected and been prepared to defend their feet against?
Moderator’s note: FHF regulars will spot a good few straw men here – challenges to write something that can be swatted down as ‘even more ridiculous than what you wrote before’. Please take care when replying: it is more useful to readers to discuss good current practice than what might have been. Keely kaiwawao said: if you can get an official note from an FIH source to confirm this I will happily accept that I’m not sure what would qualify as official enough, given that “notes” in the form of forum posts written by experienced FIH umpires repeating briefings from experienced FIH UMs have not been accepted in the past. On this topic, that terribly unofficial note on how we are apply the lack of a manufactured rule concept would read pretty much exactly like this:
I’m not sure what would qualify as official enough, given that “notes” in the form of forum posts written by experienced FIH umpires repeating briefings from experienced FIH UMs have not been accepted in the past. On this topic, that terribly unofficial note on how we are apply the lack of a manufactured rule concept would read pretty much exactly like this:
Very minor edit by official FHF moderator: sorry Keely, had to do it.
Diligent kaiwawao said: Porter – if a defender is caught out by an attacker’s speed and is running alongside them in the D with the attacker closer to the backline/goal with obvious passing or shooting options available and the attacker suddenly spins and plays the ball onto the defender’s foot, is that something you feel the defender could reasonably have expected and been prepared to defend their feet against?
My answer would be: not the defender, nor the umpire, would have expected that. But what happens next? - The moving defender kicks the ball towards goal, the way the attacker was going. No disadvantage, play on, except the attacker has to turn again to chase it. - The ball rebounds away from the attacker. PC for feet. At most hockey, an open attack with goal options becomes a PC, with considerably less chance of scoring. - The ball misses the defender’s foot. The attacker has lost possession. So whatever happens, the attacker’s team and bench are wondering why that ‘find a foot’ ever seemed a good idea. Will anyone try to ‘manufacture’ that particular offence again? Not likely. The ‘other rules’ have done their job. jayjay kaiwawao said: I’m not getting into a debate on semantics, if you can get an official note from an FIH source to confirm this I will happily accept that, currently you are just writing several paragraphs of text to gloss over the fact you are stating your opinion.
are you saying those of us on here who have regular contact with FIH UMs should ask them to please write it down for us after the briefing? because it is indeed as @Nij says: we’re to understand that sentence in the beginning of the rulebook to mean that manufacturing a foul is no longer a foul itself, but that many of the actions formerly penalised in reference to that rule, can now either be penalised under others (most commonly, i think, danger), or should be treated as “play on” situations, in accordance with the advantage rule. this is the common understanding FIH umpires share, and its being reinforced by what our UMs tell us.
now you might notice that this is not specifically stated in the UM briefing available online, and i think there’s a very simple reason why: the rulebook really explains it all. manufacturing a foul is no longer a foul. so we deal with every situation by applying the remaining rules. but even while we had the manufactured foul rule, you could easily have blown a player running into another player to claim obstruction as dangerous play rather than a manufactured foul. one option has been removed, the other remains.
imho, few umpires in my country had the sense (or maybe courage?) to actually apply the manufactured foul rule. a foot in the D was an automatic PC. since the deletion of the rule the FIH has placed greater focus on educating umpires to re-think such situations under the advantage rule and guidance, and i, for once, think this is much more effective in bringing about a genuine change. where before you had to make three decisions when the ball hit the foot (did it hit the foot? did it matter? was it manufactured foul?), you now only have two. i believe this brings higher consistency and makes it easier to understand for umpires who are aspiring to reach a high(er) standard of umpiring.
deegum Nij said: if the manufactured foul does not create a disadvantage to the team who manufactured it, then we simply play on as per advantage rules.
I cannot understand how in many instances, a “Manufactured foul” can result in a penalty against a defender. Porter’s example :”the attacker suddenly spins and plays the ball onto the defender’s foot,” I take it as describing a manufactured foul . ( Part of) Diligent’s reply: – The ball rebounds away from the attacker. PC for feet. I cannot understand how anyone could penalise the defender- it being implicit in the description that he would have zero chance of avoiding ball/ body contact Hence any penalising of the defender would be in breach of:
The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball or if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way.
Under this rule, advantaging or disadvantaging the opponent striking the ball is irrelevant. NO matter how great any advantage / disadvantage is.
nerd_is_the_word Gees this goes around in circles doesn’t it?
So deegum what your saying is that in that case the defender has not chosen to open their feet up to the ball being played?
Because that is the exact decision that every defender makes in that situation, to either reach for the ball and open up their feet, or to let the attacker shoot and make sure they don’t give away a corner.
And yes Deegum you are correct, it does describe a manufactured foul, a rule that no longer exists, and as has been said numerous times, is no longer penalised unless it breaks other rules.
Gold I have some sympathy with Deegum’s view of how Rule 9.11 should be interpreted. Indeed, based only on the words used, I find it difficult to see any other meaning. However, for whatever reason, this is not the interpretation arrived at by the vast majority (>99%?) of players and umpires and, until such time as there is further clarification in the rules or official guidance, it is necessary to use the criterion of whether the opponent’s team has been disadvantaged.
I like the way that Nij has encapsulated the issue: ”If an attempt to manufacture a foul is something likely to create dangerous play, then rules against danger are the obvious choice and readily available; if the manufactured foul does not create a disadvantage to the team who manufactured it, then we simply play on as per advantage rules”. However, in the context of manufactured “feet” (or at least some instances), I do wonder whether we shouldn’t be more ready to say that the attackers have not been disadvantaged because their player has given away possession / control rather than look at how the ball falls for the defender. Admittedly, the attacker is likely to get the benefit of any doubt but if the umpire is convinced that the play onto feet was not intended to be a “legitimate” attempt to progress an attack, shouldn’t umpires be prepared to adopt such an interpretation (even if the ball is subsequently falls under the control of the defender)?
redumpire At the risk of sounding peevish, does no one who supports strict adherence to the exact wording of the rules wish to answer this point? redumpire: said: Can I ask a question about the reverse situation? If a defender has the ball in a tight spot in the circle and deliberately plays the ball onto an attacker’s foot in an attempt to win a free hit and so get out of the tight spot, what do we think should be blown? I’m pretty sure I’d blow for a FHD 99% of the time….
If we’d blow a FHD 99% of the time in that situation (which I’m pretty sure we would), why wouldn’t we blow for a PC 99% of the time if the roles are reversed?
Jersey Jerry I do, Red. Factoring in the YHTBT, if the ball hits a defenders foot as a result of an attacker passing/dribbling/shooting its a FHA/PC. Thinking, as already stated, if the ball hadn’t hit the defenders foot, what would have happened? Only in the instances of a completely misplaced pass/shot, which hits a defenders foot some distance away and with no other attackers around, is it ‘play on.’ Kilmory Wishful thinking there Gold.
If the manufactured rule was removed because umpires couldn’t/wouldn’t enforce it then why should we think they will adopt your approach?
I only have the rules available to me, not high level briefings, but my personal opinion is the FIH bought in a rule that was not used by the majority of umpires and rather than just back down gracefully the FIH put in a meaningless explanation as to why it was removed.
It is obvious that the situation we are discussing with the “get something” foot in the D is NOT covered by the current rules, except that the defender will be penalised for playing the ball illegally. The fact that they did so unintentionally (and therefore not an offence) will happily be overlooked by umpires until that guidance is also removed.
And to answer Red’s post – Why would it not be play on? I’m all for equality. Cookie kaiwawao and deegum- what I don’t understand is why you think removal of the forced foul matters in the context of the ball hits foot debate. If you interpret 9.11 in strict terms with its guidance – ie the player only commits an offence if he voluntarily uses his foot – that isn’t an offence which can be manufactured. Its counter intuitive – I can’t force someone to do something voluntarily.
So the removal of the forced foul rule should have no impact on the consequence of how you umpire feet surely? Either you think the contact falls into the category of offence by the defender – in which case penalise if he gains an advantage – or you don’t in which case play on. Different people interpret the rule differently as to what constitutes voluntarily – but that is part of life – we all interpret events differently.
Gold
Kilmory said: Wishful thinking there Gold.
Agreed, Kilmory kaiwawao I feel most people here are ignoring my point in favour of what they imagine I wrote.
I am not disputing that the rule was changed nor do I blow manufactured fouls. The point I was making was this:
Nij made a statement that the rule was changed and the note in the rule book means that the FIH no longer want the forced foul rule in the game. My counter is that the note on the rule change does not make that point – it does not say that “some” or “many” offences that used to be penalised can be done under the current rules, it says:
“The rule… is deleted because any action of this sort can be dealt with under other Rules.
Clearly the action of playing the ball into the foot of an opponent who is not in breach of 9.11 cannot be penalised under any other Rules.
if you can get an official note from the Chair of FIH RC (or someone with the authority to speak on their behalf) to confirm that the forcing of a ball/body contact is not an offence I will happily accept that. I will not accept 2nd hand knowledge of unwritten tournament specific briefings passed on via a forum
Cookie
- it wouldn’t matter if that was how the rules were interpreted. Foot in the D = PC even when no advantage is gained is so ingrained that “gains benefit” should just be put back in the rules to make them logical and tie in with player expectations. Deleting it was a mistake and easy to rectify via changing the rule back or putting a clear reference on P1 of the book saying “read the umpire briefing for clarification on any query – it’s at www. whatever”
Gold Kaiawao, I agree with your analysis / comments about the 2011 rule changes and explanations. I consider the explanation to be lame but it seems that there was clear intention to change so that, by itself, a manufacturing of an offence would not be penalized. Some may regret this as it leaves little scope for the “brave” umpire to penalize such action but that seems to be the current position.
Diligent kaiwawao said: If you can get an official note from the Chair of FIH RC… I will happily accept that. I will not accept 2nd hand knowledge… passed on via a forum
What’s the chance of accepting an official note passed on via a forum? Your best route to happiness would seem to be 1:1, direct from the Chair of FIH RC.
jayjay kaiwawao said: “The rule… is deleted because any action of this sort can be dealt with under other Rules. Clearly the action of playing the ball into the foot of an opponent who is not in breach of 9.11 cannot be penalised under any other Rules.
aye, there’s the rub.
you have to get it out of your head that “dealt with” can be equalised with “penalised”. ANY action formerly penalised under the forced foul rule can now we dealt with by using other rules. sometimes that means penalising for an offence such as dangerous play, sometimes it means deciding there is no foul. that is also dealing with it under the rules, seeing as its the rules that tell us to play on.
i’m sorry if i have to disappoint you by saying that i wasn’t giving you unwritten tournament specific briefings As I told you, this isn’t even part of the briefing, and it most certainly is not tournament specific. i think you will be hard pressed to find an FIH umpire who has any doubts about this or is confused by the wording or sees any of the ambiguity some on these forms like to see.
I only have the rules available to me, not high level briefings Kilmory to be honest, you have the same info available as I do. the FIH UM briefing is available online. you might have less access to FIH UMs and umpires, but then again, there are some people on here who are FIH umpires and are in regular contact with FIH UMs and are happy to answer questions.
<rant> personally, i think its great that they share their experiences and are patient enough (well, mostly) to answer questions, even again and again, and i think it’s a right shame some people on here first refuse to hear what they have to say and then complain the FIH is withholding information or is not being clear enough about their intentions. that’s not a stab at anyone in particular, just me giving voice to my general frustration at some of these debates. yes, i think discussion and arguments are extremely beneficial and can be a great way of learning new things and challenging established views, but at some point it stops being constructive. and i think this discussion has long reached that point. and many others, who get dragged out of oblivion every so often to get rehashed once more. and why do we keep discussing? i think some, like me, are a little naive and hope that we might still persuade someone to our point of view. unfortunately, i’m more and more finding that some people’s opinions can’t be changed, no matter by how many valid arguments that can’t be disputed by anything else than “well, you’re wrong”. I think it’s a little sad that some people refuse to learn from what FIH umpires on here have to say about certain interpretations, but rather go round in circles complaining about the ambiguity or lack of clarity of something in the rule book, which really only is ambiguous or unclear to a minority of people involved (whether umpires, players or other people interested in the rules). however, i think that’s their loss. ultimately it might become a loss for this forum, if experienced umpires start disappearing out of frustration, and i understand that has happened in the past. sadly it will be most detrimental to the young or less experienced umpires who seek guidance from this forum. maybe thats the reason why some haven’t given up yet, who knows. </rant>
redumpire, alex.miles and keely like this.
alex.miles
Cheer up, jayjay I was stuck umpiring low level hockey before finding this forum. Keely was the UM at a tournament that was short for umpires, and so I contacted her through this forum. She said “As long as you’re honest with your questions and hear the answers, you’ll be a welcome addition to the team.” And so I umpired my first good tournament. I met two FIH umpires and an English Premier League umpire who could very well be FIH (all three have posted on this forum).
Now I’m a regular in my province’s top matches and have umpired the Bronze match at our Senior Men’s National Championships. I can honestly say that I would not be here today without this forum and the people on it like Keely. Some good does come out of this forum!
Diligent jayjay said: <rant>… some people on here …</rant>
Moderator’s note: The key ‘some people’ who trouble you were contacted by PM yesterday. It was made clear that FHF does not want the style of ‘debate’ that killed off HockeyWeb and Talking Hockey. Just so that they know that you know they’ve been warned.
jayjay alex.miles said: Cheer up jayjay
oh, i’m generally a very cheerful person. i was just expressing that my considerable patience is starting to wear down a bit. i know that there’s many people on here who generally want to learn, but those who don’t sometimes really do make it a bit frustrating. now, i love playing devil’s advocate as much as the next person, but sometimes it does get a bit much. sorry if i cam off a bit harsh.
deegum redumpire said: Can I ask a question about the reverse situation? If a defender has the ball in a tight spot in the circle and deliberately plays the ball onto an attacker’s foot in an attempt to win a free hit and so get out of the tight spot, what do we think should be blown? I’m pretty sure I’d blow for a FHD 99% of the time….
redumpire said: At the risk of sounding peevish, does no one who supports strict adherence to the exact wording of the rules wish to answer this point? I’m pretty sure you’d be incorrect a lot of the time.- Assuming it was the usual ” from 1/2 m” or so, or pushed practically all the way on to the foot. You can’t rule that UNAVOIDABLE contact is voluntary, Therefore there is no offence by (in this case) the attacker. Play on.. Or you could penalise the defence under:-
9.3 Players must not touch, handle or interfere with other players or their sticks or clothing.
An instance where the old “manufactured foul” would be useful, and not debatable, rather than using ” dealt with under other rules”
Refer jay’s post #38 ANY action formerly penalised under the forced foul rule can now we dealt with by using other rules.
I agree entirely. Please note, folks. If it was an offence under the “forced foul” rule it still is. -subject to any other rule changes since the deletion of the specific rule.
Diligent redumpire said: … does no one who supports strict adherence to the exact wording of the rules wish to answer this point? Deegum said: Please note, folks. If it was an offence under the “forced foul” rule it still is - subject to any other rule changes since the deletion of the specific rule.
Although I don’t support strict (blind) adherence to rules, preferring to go with fair play and consistency with the spirit of the rule, I will try to answer your point… again. Try thinking about it this way: re-read the 2011 guidance, not as “it still is under other Rules”, but “can be dealt with under other Rules”. That will allow you to join the many other umpires worldwide in allowing that, in a few situations, the outcome without a ‘forced offence’ rule is different from the outcome with a ‘forced offence’ rule. Just before that, at the bottom of page 4, the 2011 book explains that the changes “seek to simplify the game without altering its fundamental characteristics”. Removing the ‘forced offence’ freed the umpire to simply judge ‘foot’ or ‘danger’, without delving into the complexity of a player’s motives or options, or into the complexity of the notes to each rule. Most younger players didn’t know there was a forced foul rule anyway, only becoming aware when an umpire used it for a ‘Gotcha!’. The game has carried on as if the ‘forced offence’ never existed. The fundamental characteristics have not altered. The rule change found what was sought.
Deegum
and I’ll have to try to explain it , Again!
Diligent said in a few situations, the outcome without a ‘forced offence’ rule is different from the outcome with a ‘forced offence’ rule. But apparently, the outcome is different in almost all situations where the ” forced foul” rule would have applied -IMO
Unfortunately, Diligent, you are still left with:
delving into the complexity of a player’s motives or options
as you have to, for instance, decide if a player ” voluntarily” or otherwise, permitted ball/body contact
Without delving
into the complexity of the notes to each rule
I would have thought the intention of the notes in general were to, and generally do, make the rule(s) clearer, not more complex.
re-read the 2011 guidance, not as “it still is under other Rules”,
I suggest that folk should ” re-read the Introduction to the 2011 rules ,” Rule changes” section as written”, since it is likely the rules board meant what they said.
any action of this sort (ed: “forcing”) can be dealt with under other Rules.
Why should the note say that a non offence can be ” dealt with” under other rules? Perhaps because it is an offence?
BTW, I am trying very very hard to be polite and watching my phraseology. So, as far as I know I am committing / giving no offence in this post.
Kilmory deegum said: BTW, I am trying very very hard to be polite and watching my phraseology. So, as far as I know I am committing / giving no offence in this post.
Agreed, but you are trying to flog a dead horse!
Please leave it. We all recognise the point you are trying to make, the majority will never agree with you though. There is absolutely no point repeating the same thing over and over again in the hope that something will change. If you always do what you always did, you’ll always get what you always got. And no – that is not an invitation to change the words slightly but make the same point.
Dan Quinton said: Unfortunately Justin’s thread on ‘foot in the D not always being a PC’ is no longer open to replies – hence a new thread.
And now this one is going the same way. I’ll be very disappointed if another thread is opened to discuss this same topic.
****************
Makes one wonder why the FIH Rules Committee bother to compose Rules and publish them in a rule book, doesn’t it ?
There was of course no proposal during this ‘web debate’ to discuss restoring or substituting an amended version of either the offence of forcing or the gains benefit exception clause, as the making of suggestions concerning changes to Rule or Rule Guidance is forbidden on this website – as is any discussion of the way the Rules of Hockey have been written previously.
Field Hockey Rules. Unfair Benefit Gained. Disadvantaged.
Edited 2nd May 2013
In the Umpiring Section of the Rules of Hockey (which is where all the published umpire briefings and advice should be contained) under the heading
2 Applying the Rules.
there is a sub-heading 2.2. Advantagewhich advises:
a. it is not necessary for every offence to be penalised when no benefit is gained by the offender ; unnecessary interruptions to the flow of the match cause undue delay and irritation
b. when the Rules have been broken, an umpire must apply advantage if this is the most severe penalty
c. possession of the ball does not automatically mean there is an advantage ; for advantage to apply, the player/team with the ball must be able to develop their play
d. having decided to play advantage, a second opportunity must not be given by reverting to the original penalty
The crux of the message is that the umpire has discretion about applying penalty when an Offence has been committed. There is a deviation introduced in clause (b) which refers to “when the Rules have been broken”, this is a deviation from clause (a) because a Breach of Rule may not necessarily be an Offence, We are given some examples in the Rules of Hockey of Breaches of Rule (breaking of Rules) that are not offences, particularly in the Guidance to Rule 9.11 :-
Rule 9.11. Field players must not stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their body.
It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player.The player only commits an offenceif they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball or if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way.
It is not an offence if the ball hits the hand holding the stick but would otherwise have hit the stick.
We may argue indefinitely about the difference between ‘voluntarily’ and ‘intentionally’ and what is meant by or if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way , because no one seems to know the answers, but both those clauses refer to actions that are Breaches of Rule but are not, or are not always, offences.
To continue :- “an umpire must apply advantage if this is the most severe penalty” to call the applying of advantage a more severe penalty seems to me an odd use of language, as what is meant is that penalty should not be applied. It might have been better put, “an umpire should not penalise an offence if doing so would disadvantage the team offended against.”
There is another potential source of confusion connected to this in the Penalties Section, where ironically the second sentence is along the lines I suggested above (which avoided the double negative).
12 Penalties 12.1 Advantage : a penalty is awarded only when a player or team has been disadvantaged by an opponent breaking the Rules. If awarding a penalty is not an advantage to the team which did not break the Rules, play must continue.(note ‘must’ not ‘may’)
The potential confusion is contained in “has been disadvantaged by an opponent breaking the Rules” when the only examples of a player being in breach of Rule and not at the same time committing an offence are:-
the exceptions given in Rule 9.11 mentioned above (which appear to be ignored)
the intentional playing of the ball over the base-line by a defender (a silly rule);
a defender, while attempting to use the stick to play the ball, hit below the knee from within 5m with a shot at the goal during a penalty corner (an unjust and dangerous rule)
The sentence would be better put “If awarding a penalty would be a disadvantage to the team offended against play must continue.
Being clear about what an Offence is and how it may or does differ from a Breach of Rule would go some way to sorting out the present muddle between advantage, not disadvantaged and gained benefit, as well as when and if a penalty ought to be applied. We could at least avoid this sort of nonsense
“Being forced, the defender’s foot contact with the ball was involuntary and unavoidable, but it disadvantaged an opponent and so a penalty corner was awarded.“ There is a Breach of Rule by the defender there, but no Offence and there should be no penalty, disadvantaging an opponent is not an Offence – players spend the entire playing time legitimately trying to disadvantage their opponents – for an Offence there has to be either an illegal action or an action that is illegal in certain circumstances (which should be clearly set out) for example, intention.
The opposite is this “The defender stuck his leg out and deliberately kicked the ball but, as the attacker was able to regain possession of it and play on with advantage, a team penalty was not called for” (a personal penalty may however have followed after the event).
It has proved,to be extraordinarily difficult to get umpires to assimilate and accommodate the absence of the previous exception to the present Guidance to Rule 9.11.; an exception that was deleted firstly in 2006 and finally in 2009 (on this the third occasion this gained advantage or gained benefit exception clause has been removed. The previous time was in major rewrite of the rulebook in 1995/6 ).
The corresponding Rule of 1995/6 is I think an interesting contrast to the present version, although some of the same ambiguities and conflicts are present.
13.1.2 Use of body, hands, feet
A player shall not a. stop the ball with the hand or catch it There is nothing to prevent players using their hands to protect themselves from dangerously raised balls. b. intentionally stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their bodies
It is not an offence if the ball hits the foot or body of a player unless that player: • has moved into the path of the ball, or • made no effort to avoid being hit, or • was positioned with the clear intention of stopping the ball (with the body was added later)
Players should not be penalised when the ball is played at them from a short distance.
c. use the foot or leg to support the stick in a tackle.
It was also of course an offence to force a ball contact on an opponent and to raise the ball at an opponent (it still is in some circumstances an offence to raise the ball at an opponent and ‘forcing’ ball/body contact is supposed to be covered by ‘other Rules’,but one would not know this from a casual reading of the 2013 rulebook).
Back to the present:
An involuntary (unintentional) ball/body contact is a Breach of Rule(because the word intentionally has been removed from the Rule) but it is NOT an Offence and therefore there is no penalty stipulated for such Breach of Rule. There is currently no exception to that statement. Advantaged gained, benefit gained, disadvantaged opponents, PREVENTING A CERTAIN GOAL, are all irrelevant. The last a case of ‘throwing the baby out with the bathwater’ and an embarrassment that needs to be corrected with an amended gained unfair benefit clause in that case (and perhaps in only one other – an unintentional ball/body contact by a player who is in possession of the ball).
What to do with this following Guidance?
It is not an offence if the ball hits the hand holding the stick but would otherwise have hit the stick.
(better written It is not an offence if the ball hits a hand holding the stick but would otherwise have hit the stick).
Delete it as covered by the Rule?
Rule 9.11. Field players must not intentionally play the ball with any part of their body.
Job done, nothing more is needed for the Rule.
Rule Guidance could be added to cover an unintentional ball/body contact that prevents a certain goal, in the absence of a prior offence by opponents (such as a ball raised above a given height and/or from within a given distance at the player hit with the ball). Such body/ball contact should be penalised with a penalty stroke. Not to award a penalty stroke in such circumstances is likely to lead to reckless defending i.e. intentional self-endangerment.
At this stage, a ‘mythology’ having developed about ‘acceptance of risk‘ and ‘positioning with the intention of using the body to play the ball‘ or ‘backing the stick with the body in case the ball is missed with the stick‘ which has led to the view that there is no such thing as an ‘on target’ dangerous shot at the goal, it is necessary to point out in Guidance that an assumption of intent to use the body to play the ball based on prior positioning especially when it is beyond playing distance of the ball, is both unsound and unreasonable.
An ‘acceptance of risk’ is confined to acceptance that there is risk of unintentional dangerous play such as deflections and mis-hits (which should nonetheless be penalised) it does not include acceptance of a risk that the player hit will be deliberately targeted or that the ball will be played at them in a reckless way i.e. without consideration for the safety of other players on the part of the player propelling the ball.
In other Rule Guidance, to Rule 9.8. for example, umpires could usefully be reminded:- “A raised shot has to be made at goal, not deliberately (and/or dangerously) at a defender standing either in goal or between the goal and the striker“ (part in colour italics taken from The Lifted Ball Gawley 2001). Which brings us to the need for a fit for purpose definition of a dangerously played ball, not least to avoid the circular arguments concerning what is and is not legitimate evasive action and how the umpire should respond when evasive action is not possible.
This is a story about corruption, dark intrigue and world domination via field hockey……not really, that is just an echo from something silly that I read. This is the tale of how the clause relating to the gaining of a benefit from an unintentional body/ball contact came to be deleted from the Rules of Hockey- Rule 9.11 – but the text remaining in the Guidance to that Rule being interpreted as if the deletion had not taken place – it’s a sad story.
To begin this convoluted tale we need to look at the relevant Rule and Rule Guidance in the Rules of Hockey in 2006 – the year in which “unless that player or their team benefits from this” last appeared in a rulebook. Following a change of page format and a major rewrite in 2004, the ball/body contact Rule looked rather ‘spartan’ compared to previous versions.
Rules of Hockey 2006 9.10 Field players must not stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their body.
It is not an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player, unless that player or their team benefits from this.
No offence is committed if the ball hits the hand holding the stick but would otherwise have hit the stick.
At the time the Rules of Hockey were revised and printed annually but as there was only one minor change to the Rules of Hockey in 2006 (relating to the curve in a stick) the FIH decided to issue a single page supplement, to be added to the 2005 edition, and not a completely new rulebook.
It is necessary here to ‘side-track’ a little and bring in ‘intentionally’, which in various forms also disappeared and reappeared in the Rules of Hockey in period 2003 -2007. In 2007 the wording of the ball/body contact Rule was revised by the HRB, to reintroduce ‘intention’ in Guidance, reference to intention having been removed from the Rule in 2004. Previously this was the ball/body contact Rule.
Rules of Hockey 2003 Rule 13.1.2 Use of body, hands, feet by players other than goalkeepers. Players shall not:- a. stop or catch the ball with the hand There is nothing to prevent players using their hands to protect themselves from dangerously raised balls.
b. intentionally stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their bodies.
It is not automatically an offence if the ball hits the foot or body of a player. On many occasions when a ball hits the foot or body of a player an offence will not have taken place and play should continue. It is only an offence if the ball hits the foot or body of a player and that player: • moved intentionally into the path of the ball, or • made no effort to avoid being hit, or • was positioned with the clear intention to stop the ball with the foot or body, or • gains benefit.
The 2003 version of the Rule was not perfect but nonetheless quite good (I had – and still have – reservations about “was positioned with the clear intention to stop the ball with the foot or body” unless the ‘positioned’ player is within playing distance of the balland obviously not intending to use the stick. We have ‘crack-pots’ who declare that a defender positioned on the goal-line intends to use the body if the ball is missed with the stick – but that’s another story.). The ‘fly in the ointment’ was It is only an offence if the ball hits the foot or body of a player and that player gains benefit which by 2005 had been change to It is not an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player, unless that player or their team benefits from this. The ‘gains benefit clause’, (I have underlined) as it became known, became a problem because many umpires insisted on interpreting any ball/body contact, particularly any foot/ball contact, no matter how caused, as of benefit to the team of the player hit (or were told to do so). This was easy to umpire and consistent, but it turned the intent of the Rule ‘on its head’. The ‘gained benefit’ clause effectively always ‘trumped’ – It is not automatically an offence if the ball hits the foot or body of a player – body ball contact was assumed always to be ‘of benefit’ and so an offence, and penalised unless opponents could play on with advantage.
In 2007 the HRB presumably in an attempt to clarify or reassert the intent of the Rule Guidance and redress the damage done by removing the word ‘intentionally‘ from the Rule, removed the ‘gains benefit’ clause – so that what then became Rule 9.11 read:-
Rules of Hockey 2007/8 9.11. Field players must not stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their body.
It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot,hand or body of a field player. The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball or if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way.
It is not an offence if the ball hits the hand holding the stick but would otherwise have hit the stick.”
So now reference to intention was restored (and expanded), but in Rule Guidance not the Rule, and reference to the gaining of an advantage or benefit from a ball/body contact that was not made voluntarily was removed.
Then something quite extraordinary happened. It was communicated to the public on the FIH website as follows:-
Rules of Hockey 2007 Official FIH explanation concerning ‘rule 9.11’ 07 Feb 2007 13:07 With the turn of the year, many more nations are now using the 2007/8 Rules of Hockey. The FIH is always keen to receive feedback on any rules changes or, for that matter, any existing rules. We receive this through various informal networks but also scan the web based discussion forums regularly.
An issue we have picked up through a few national associations, is uncertainty about rule 9.11: “field players must not stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their body”.
Rule 9.11 of the Rules of Hockey 2007/8 states:
“Field players must not stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their body. It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player. The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball or if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way. It is not an offence if the ball hits the hand holding the stick but would otherwise have hit the stick.”
Compared to the 2005/6 Rules, the note in italics has been changed in an endeavour to reinforce the intended interpretation of this rule. The following advice has been produced to clarify this interpretation so that the rule is applied consistently.
The 2005/6 Rules indicated that it was not an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player “unless that player or their team benefits from this”. However, as with other rules, this continues to be an offence if benefit is gained. Rule 9.11 should therefore continue to be applied taking into account any benefit gained by the player or their team.
This strange ‘explanation’ restored the version of the Guidance which existed prior to 2005 and reversed the deletion of the ‘gains benefit’ clause.
Why is what happened strange and extraordinary ? Because it was unconstitutional, contravening all the previous statements by the FIH Executive and the FIH Hockey Rules Board concerning the established procedure for amending Rule and directly challenged the sole authority of the HRB for the amendment of the Rules of Hockey – and because the gains benefit clause referred to was not in the Rules of Hockey 2007.
A month after the issue of the Rules of Hockey for 2007/8 and before there was time for any meaningful trial of the game sans the ‘gains benefit’ clause, we are informed. After much discussion especially with input from Peter von Reth(as Hockey Rules Board member and Chairman of the Umpiring Committee) and after agreement by Hockey Rules Board Chairman Wolfgang Rommel, the following guidance note has been prepared. The Chair of the HRB is an individual not himself the FIH Hockey Rules Board any more than Peter von Reth was – or any more than he as an individual was the the whole of FIH Umpiring Committee - and there was no indication that the announced reversal had been approved by the FIH Executive.
The procedure for amending the Rules of Hockey is easy enough to find on the FIH website under FAQ in the Rules section. http://www.fih.ch/en/sport/rules/faq What was done with the announcement on 7th February 2007 flouted every point of that procedure, particularly those mentioned in Q/A 18 – 20.
Just as bad was the inane justification for the interpretation that was presented as the “Official FIH explanation concerning ‘rule 9.11’”. The 2005/6 Rules indicated that it was not an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player “unless that player or their team benefits from this”. However, as with other rules, this continues to be an offence if benefit is gained.
That pretends that the deletion of “unless that player or their team benefits from this“. by the HRB after 2006 should be interpreted as if the words remained in the Rule Guidance. How could this have been, when they clearly did not ? It all seems to hang on the word ‘is‘ which was emphasized in bold text. This this continues to be an offence if benefit is gained. contrasted with not an offence unless that player or their team benefitsfrom this there is a change of syntax but I can’t see a change in meaning between these statements.
The Hockey Rules Board, not surprisingly, were not it seems impressed by the circumvention of an amendment to the wording of the Rule Guidance they had authorised only a month previously, but no immediate action was taken, so this ‘Official explanation ‘ was accepted as applying to the Rules of Hockey 2007-9. Subsequent Committee meetings of the Members of the HRB however declined to ratify the unconstitutional ‘consultation’ with their Chairman in Feb 2007.
Rules of Hockey 2009-11 the clause “unless that player or their team benefits from this” was not restored to the embedded Rule Guidance
Rules of Hockey 2011-13 the clause “unless that player or their team benefits from this” was again not restored to the embedded Rule Guidance
Rules of Hockey 2013 -15 the clause “unless that player or their team benefits from this” has not been restored to the embedded Rule Guidance.
(I labour the time-span intentionally – six years compared with three weeks)
The ‘gains benefit’ clause of the body/ball contact Rule was and is therefore defunct following the expiration of 2007-9 Rules of Hockey and until such time the FIH Rules Committee (the renamed HRB) choose to restore it – if they do. Naturally the Umpiring Committee did not and do not accept this, and umpires are still being coached as if the ‘gains benefit’ clause is and always has remained part of the text of Rule 9.11.
There should of course be a ‘gained unfair benefit’ clause – both parties are at fault – but it should be an amended version, not the ‘catch all’ previously given. There is a need for penalty when a goal is directly prevented with a ball/body contact by a defending field-player and there has been no offence by a member of the the attacking team. There is also a case for calling an offence when there is an accidental body/ball contact by a player in possession of the ball in the opponent’s circle, when possession is retained or some other benefit, such as a pass to a team-mate, accrues, but no more than that is required.
