The Umpire Manager’s Briefing, for Umpires at FIH Tournaments, takes the place of the Rules of Hockey.
(a document that should still be contained within the Rules Of Hockey, from where it originated)
What the existing interpretations are is not mentioned, so that advice reads like an Article of Faith (i.e. as if to say No matter what the text may be it supports our interpretation – the actual wording is irrelevant). We can possibly get some idea of the nature of this interpretation if we look at an instruction to Level One Umpiring candidates published in a UK County Hockey Association Handbook in 2010.
The notes to the foot body rule 9.11 say it is an offence ‘only’ when contact with the ball is ‘voluntary’, but in practice an accidental contact that alters the balance of play is just as much an offence as deliberately playing with foot or body. (my bold)
This is just one example of interpreting rules consistently with your partner and with other umpires the teams will have. Sometimes their interpretation will differ from how the rule seems, to you, to read. But you must umpire play their way, and never apply your own version. If that leaves you uncomfortable then a bit of lateral thinking should soon enough make the same sense of it for you as it does for everyone else.
That interpretation of the Rule Guidance given to Rule 9.11 in the Rules of Hockey, which this umpire coach referred to as “notes”, does indeed differ from how it seems to me to read, it’s a direct contradiction. The instruction to umpire as other umpires are seen to umpire and not to apply “your own version” (use your own understanding of the written Rules and Rule Guidance) is reminiscent of indoctrination or of introduction to a cult. What is the ‘lateral thinking’ required ? “If I want to be accepted and progress I had better do as I am told” ?
It does not matter if one is for or against having a ‘gained benefit clause’, this approach is wrong. The reason we have a FIH Committee charged by the FIH Executive with overseeing Rule amendment, is so that the making of Rule does not get high-jacked by any individual FIH Official or any other group – in fact such unauthorized interference is specifically forbidden by the FIH Executive. What has happened in this case is unacceptable, however, instead of rebuking umpires who refused to respond to changes in the text of the Rule Guidance, the opposite has happened. In 2011, without a hint of shame, the FIH Rules Committee deleted the offence of forcing – declaring such offence can be dealt with by “other Rules” – because , they said, umpires were not penalising the forcing of the ball into the feet of an opponent, it being too difficult to see clear intent, (just as it is (sic) ‘too difficult’ to see intent when a ball is, illegally, intentionally lifted with a hit - but, strangely, intent in the case of a ball/foot contact can be assumed).
Forcing a breach of Rule from an opponent (was from 2011) no longer to be viewed as an offence in itself. But, unless the ball is raised there is now no “other Rule” to forbid the ‘finding of a foot’. The result will likely be an increase in the awarding of penalty corners for ball/foot contacts that forwards have ‘skillfully’ manufactured and a part of hockey Rule – the forbidding of deliberately playing the ball into an opponent’s body – which had been in existence beyond living memory prior to 2011 *, will have been erased.
* For example (from a time when there was also Rule Guidance relating to the gaining of an unfair benefit following an unintentional (or forced) ball/body contact) .
A player shall not:-
(e) play the ball wildly, or play or kick (goalkeepers) the ball in such a way as to be dangerous in itself, or likely to lead to dangerous play, nor play the ball intentionally into any part of an opponent’s body, including the feet and legs
(ii) a player should not be penalised for a rebound when the ball has been propelled straight at him from close quarters by an opponent.
The underlined part of that Rule and Rule Guidance was removed after 2003, presumably because it was too complicated or unclear – but it looks simple and perfectly clear to me. Then (from 2011) playing the ball intentionally into an opponent’s feet and legs, can no longer an offence, because no such offence is described within the Rules of Hockey.
So much for retaining the traditional aspects of the game – a declared aim of the FIH Rules Committee.
The Umpires Managers Briefing for Tournaments currently ’announces’ that there has been no change to the interpretation of a ball hitting the foot, hand or body of a field player and that the text of the Rule “reinforces existing interpretation” (not that umpiring practice is following Rule, which is what Rule application should be doing and the way this ought to be put – Rule should not be following practice, that is the wrong way about – but this is more than a matter of syntax, it is an attitude). Setting out what the ”existing interpretation” actually might be, is thus neatly avoided.
So what if the UMB for International level Umpires is different to the normal Rules of Hockey – does that matter? Yes for two reasons. The first is that Rule Variation for International level matches should be set out in the FIH published Rule Variations – the above variation is not. The second, and by far the more important for the average participant is that umpires of all levels are being actively encouraged to refer to the UMB for useful guidance. There is no reason whatsoever why any useful guidance should not be sanctioned by the FIH Rules Committee and published in the Rules of Hockey.
Why is the UMB divisive? Why is it published at all when all that is in it could (and should) be contained within the rule book?
The UMB extension of the Rule Guidance to the Free Hit has been cut from this article and moved to a new article on this subject.
Rules of Hockey. ‘Foot’. Forcing. “Gains benefit”. Confusion and con.
I included these opening posts when posting the entire discussion thread in my article Loopy Vicious Circles http://wp.me/pKOEk-VFon April 1st. but did not comment on the individual posts except to say that some of the contributors seemed to be unaware of the topic of the thread. ‘Distraction techniques’ used in discussion – the politician’s trick of answering the question they have an answer for or want to answer, rather than the questions asked, often done ‘automatically’, as if to a script – is evident here, but I don’t think it is deliberate, the posters are just repeating arguments that those who have previously employed such evasions have ‘trained’ them to give. The same pattern can be seen in umpiring decisions given.
The thread begins with several questions from someone new to umpiring – and maybe even new to field-hockey.
Dan Quinton Can you more experienced umpires please advise on what you look out for and what you do about attackers intentionally pushing the ball onto a defenders foot in the D. I am still struggling with the fact that players always expect a PC to be given if the ball hits a defenders foot in D, whatever happens.
Dan Quinton is the kind of novice that this advice – from a UK County Umpires Association Handbook – was aimed at :-
The notes to the foot body rule 9.11 say it is an offence ‘only’ when contact with the ball is ‘voluntary’, but in practice an accidental contact that alters the balance of play is just as much an offence as deliberately playing with foot or body.
This is just one example of interpreting rules consistently with your partner and with other umpires the teams will have. Sometimes their interpretation will differ from how the rule seems, to you, to read. But you must umpire play their way, and never apply your own version. If that leaves you uncomfortable then a bit of lateral thinking should soon enough make the same sense of it for you as it does for everyone else.
That advice is pernicious nonsense but it is typical of the kind of instruction given to novice umpires, especially young ones, by umpire coaches from their local umpiring associations. The correct advice would be to get to know and understand the Rule and Rule Guidance as given in the rule book and to apply it literally as written. Those who would react with feigned horror at such an idea and point out the many flaws there are in the published Rules of Hockey, might then do something to address such flaws, instead of dismissing the parts that do not fit with their ‘personal philosophy’ of how hockey should be both governed and umpired – their own ‘interpretations’ (which are, of course, in the opinion of these umpires, far superior to the Rule and Rule Guidance published by the FIH Rules Committee) . The author of the above rubbish regularly posts on a hockey related website that umpires commonly allow play to continue when there is an unintentional foot/ball contact – a view at odds with what he has been coaching – because ‘in practice’ any foot/ball contact will be assumed to alter the balance of play in some way .
kaiwawaoThe simple answer is that you can’t do anything about the “manufactured foul” as the rule against it was deleted a little while back. Your only consideration now is whether there was any danger – you cannot penalise an attacker for putting the ball onto a foot in the D.
That is exactly the situation but then kaiwawao continues…
A slightly longer view I would add that is yes, you can certainly argue for a play on or no foul especially if the ball was going to go out of play were it not for the contact. Indeed if it does go out anyway you could then give a LC but you’d struggle to convince most players at most levels to READ the rules let alone know all the amendments that have happened in the years since they last looked at the book so your life will be easier to give a PC
Probably without noticing that he has done so, he has changed the subject being discussed – which was the forcing of a ball/foot contact onto an opponent by a player in possession of the ball – and writes about ‘arguing’ for “play-on – no offence” after the ball has hit the defender’s foot, the ‘no offence’ he is referring to being the foot/ball contact, not the forcing action of the player who was in possession of the ball.
The expectation of players that is referred to in the opening post is that any ball/foot contact will be penalised as an offence; but who, it must be asked, is the umpire ‘arguing’ with – if not himself. What has the expectation of players to do with giving the correct decision? Why worry about the expectation of players if one is convinced that they don’t know the Rules ? (That players do not know the Rules is – an often inaccurate – slur on players that umpires commonly and casually repeat, despite those same umpires ignoring much of the published Rules of Hockey and substituting their own ‘common sense’ so that players cannot ‘know’ what ‘rules’ are being applied.) Who creates the expectation of players but umpires? Players come to expect umpires to do as other umpires have done – the advice quoted from the hand-book above is for umpires to do just that – and not to try to make their own sense of what is given in the rule book.
I’m sure there are plenty of umpires who consider the removal unfortunate due to the the way it has legitimised the lazy players “winning” a PC because they “skilfully” managed to put the ball onto the foot of a defender when a pass or a shot would be more attractive or even more logical play.
But these umpires do not, it appears, act on their considered opinion. The removal of forcing as an offence has not legitimized the ‘winning’ of a penalty corner by the forcing of a foot contact by an opponent. The forcing of the contact may not be an offence in itself (but may also be dangerous play) , but the fact that the contact is forced must mean that the foot/ball was not made voluntarily by the player hit and therefore cannot be an offence by the player hit. The removal of forcing as an offence does not ‘automatically’ convert all forced ball/foot contact into an offence by the player hit with the ball, it simply removes the previous facility to penalise a player forcing such a contact. The two incidents – forcing and being hit with the ball – are different and separate and by different players, in fact opposed competitors.
HackerNot sure I would agree. For me if there is no movement by the defender to actively use their foor OR if the defender hasn’t IMO deliberately position their feet to block the ball AND there is no attacker positioned to play the ball (it’s no a legitimate pass) then its play on. I was quite a heavy user of manufactured foul so mourn its passing).
Hacker continues along the path the discussion has been diverted onto. He proposes several conditions to be met if the defender is not to be penalised (if the ball has been intentionally forced onto the defender’s foot by an attacker). That forcing was previously an offence by a player in possession of the ball has been overlooked – the part in brackets is omitted from thinking. I don’t believe this is intentional in this case, it’s just habit. Umpires habitually regard any foot/ball contact as an offence and a potential need for penalty. He doesn’t directly mention ‘gains benefit’ but writes of the absence of an attacker positioned to play the ball and as if intentionally forcing the ball into the foot of a defender could at the same time be regarded as a legitimate attempt to make a pass (the attacker ‘having (keeping) his cake and eating it’): it can’t be both. The gained benefit exception to the Rule Guidance to Rule 9.11. was in any case deleted several years ago and so the presence or absence of a team-mate of the player forcing a foot contact on the far side of the player hit with the ball is (doubly?) irrelevant. Attempting to pass the ball ‘through’ an opponent is in any case a contradiction in terms – pass being a shortening of by-pass i.e. going around, not ‘through’ – and very poor hockey, ‘passes’ are not made at opponents.
Inverting cause and reallocating blame has become a much used, even overused strategy, there are examples of it within previous issues of the Rules of Hockey and in ‘common practice’. The prime example of such an inversion of a Rule in the Rules of Hockey was the (now deleted) PIT Interpretation of the Obstruction Rule (9.12) which, in a way that was similar to the ‘flip’ from discussing ’forcing’ to discussing a contact offence – seen above – flipped from mention of obstructive actions by a player in possession of the ball to describing actions by a player attempting to tackle for the ball, which would have been more appropriately placed in the following Rule (9.13), (that forbids tackling from a position where physical contact would occur). This interpretation effectively destroyed the Obstruction Rule by distracting attention from the purpose of the Rule, the prohibiting of obstructive actions. The prime example of ‘inversion’ in the ‘common practice’ of umpires, is the unwritten ‘rule’ they have invented that declares an ‘on target’ shot at the goal cannot be considered dangerous play. Both of these inversions have become so ingrained (PIT is still applied even though deleted after 2003) that if umpires are asked to describe circumstances in which they would penalise a shot made at a player defending his team’s goal, made more than 5m from that player, as dangerous play or to describe circumstances of ball shielding – without physical contact – which they would penalise as Obstruction, they have no reply. In these areas umpires are no longer making or even attempting to make decisions about dangerous play and obstruction, they simply don’t see offences.
Dan Quinton thanks kaiwawao – as someone relatively new to umpiring (me that is) are you saying that there used to be a rule to prevent ‘manufactured fouls’ in the D? When and why was it removed? I dont see the logic as it seems so easy to do in the D and get a short for nothing.
When? Officially in 2011. Why? Because for some years the forcing of a foot contact was ignored; incredibly the FIH RC amended (deleted) Rule to follow ‘practice’. Why the ‘practice’? It is much easier to make the observation “Did the ball hit a foot?” than the judgement “Did the player in possession of the ball propel the ball into his opponent’s foot intentionally?” Once the habit of penalising foot/ball contact became established the reasons for doing so were simply ‘forgotten’, so even obviously forced contact resulted in the player hit with the ball being penalised as a matter of established practice and player expectation. ”An ‘on target’ shot at goal cannot be dangerous” is just an extension of the same idea – with a few added ‘bells and whistles’ such as ‘accepting risk’, ‘positioning with intent’ ‘causing danger by positioning’ ‘intent to use the body if the ball is missed with the stick’ – any excuse to avoid examining the actions and intent of the player who raised the ball and endangered an opponent by doing so. Motive? More penalty corners, more goals.
I have picked out one other post because it gives another ‘slant’ to the penalising of offences.
ToPpS I know at tournaments, we’re briefed that attackers have to “EARN” their short corners! As other members have pointed out, if the the defender has gained an advantage from having the ball touch their foot in the circle/D, then it’s a short corner. If they have NOT gained an advantage then it’s a play on.
Granted you need either the experience or the confidence (balls) to sell that to the players, as they are conditioned to expect the short corner. Blow it, don’t blow it but be consistent in your decisions throughout the match and you should be fine.
As the others have done, ToPps ignores the topic of the thread and looks instead to find an offence in the foot/ball contact and does so via the long deleted ‘gains benefit exception to the Rule Guidance to Rule 9.11‘. He also goes along with the strange notion that Rule compliant decisions would have to be ‘sold’ to players whom other umpires have ‘trained’ to expect something else: as kaiwawao noted, it is much easier to do what is expected (in this case award a penalty corner, even if it is completely wrong). The slant that ToPps introduces – from briefing he has received – is the ‘earning’ of a penalty. What an Umpire Coach should be conveying to candidate umpires is that where an advantage can be played it should be played, so players should not, as they commonly do, just shove the ball into the foot of an opponent and then immediately stop playing, assuming the ‘automatic’ penalty ‘won’. A penalty is in any case a penalty against the team of a player who has committed an offence, it is not a reward given to and certainly not ’earned’ by an action of the opposing team. The deletion of forcing as an offence in its own right has ‘dented’ that principle, but it still holds true: penalties should not be regarded as rewards and ‘played for’ or ‘created’. Umpires should not allow themselves to be ‘conned’ in this way, even if it is easy to ‘go along’ with the con and they are expected by ‘everybody’ to do so for the sake of consistency.
That umpires did consistently ignore forcing and still ignore obstructive ball shielding, but still insist on penalising unintentional ball/body contact, is just a historical accident, doing as other umpires have done and are doing; ‘common practice’ could just as easily been the opposite had a lead been given in the opposite direction.
Field Hockey Rules. Obstruction. Backsticks. Different penalties.
The first clip shows a defender deliberately shielding the ball to prevent an opponent making a tackle attempt and also moving bodily into the opponent – who is obliged to retreat to avoid contact (for fear of being penalised for tackling with contact). For some reason, that I cannot fathom, the umpires waves play on until a second attacker tries to get at the ball from the other side of the ball-holder, waits a few seconds, and then awards a penalty corner.
In the first incident in the next clip what looks like a backstick shot at the goal is scored from. Unfortunately the frame rate of the original is low, so the slow-motion is not much help in deciding what happened. The second incident is clearly backsticks but there is some doubt about the intent of the defender and certainly about her Rule knowledge. I say that because if she had knocked the ball off the base-line a penalty corner would have been used as a re-start (an alternative would be much fairer here http://wp.me/pKOEk-Kd ). If she had shielded the ball and ‘crab-walked’ it out of the circle she may not have been penalised at all. The player was obviously shocked to have a penalty stroke awarded against her team because she failed to turn the head of the stick sufficiently.
What surprises me is 1) that a deliberate obstruction, which clearly prevents an opponent playing the ball, is penalised with a penalty corner and not, as it should have been, with a penalty stroke. Why should it not be a penalty stroke? 2) that backsticks continues to be regarded as an offence almost fifteen years after edge hitting was introduced – when it was obviously introduced to circumvent ‘back-sticks’ and in response to a demand for facility to hit the ball from the left of the body – but 3) ball shielding and moving into an opponent while doing so – two offences – are not seen as offences.
In the 2010 World Cup it was obvious that the Chinese team had been coached to avoid giving obstruction (and they played very attractive hockey). This was not as evident in 2012 at the London Olympics, but the habit of movement away rather than turning and blocking was obviously still there. I suppose that by the next World Cup they will obstruct opponents as readily and as deliberately as any of the other top teams – a pity.
One of the justifications given for introducing edge-hitting was that it was very difficult for an umpire to tell if the face of the stick-head or the back of it had been used to strike the ball. That ‘reasoning’ made no sense to me at the time (1999) and still doesn’t. But it makes good sense as an argument to allow the ball to be played with any part of the stick -head.
The reverse edge hit is not an easy stroke to execute (and the ‘hard’ forehand edge hit has been banned because of the difficulty there is in controlling the path and flight of the ball). The incident shown in the video is outside the shooting circle and would be illegal even if not dangerous – the ball has been intentionally lifted with a hit – but too often the stroke is used like that as a means of making a shot at the goal, ’through’ any defender unfortunate enough to get in the way. Unfortunate because it is the defender who is likely to be penalised – even if injured. Another contrast in penalty but this time because of location - and the bizarre notion that an ‘on target’ shot at the goal cannot be dangerous play - rather than the nature of the offence. If that incident had occurred in the circle as a shot at the goal it’s not unlikely that the defender would be penalised for positioning with intent to stop the ball with his body.
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.
Question asked in 2010. The EHL own goal save…if a defender were to accidentally raise a ball towards net, should a defender on the goalline (not goalie/pwgkp) be allowed to stop the ball above shoulder height? Again, common sense says ‘of course’, but letter of the law doesn’t allow for it because technically the ball wasn’t raised during a shot at goal.
The questioner answers his own question in four words, but invites this answer, given over two posts, by an umpire who had not (and has not) umpired an European Hockey League match.
Top level umpires know the rules inside and out and then forget them and make decisions based on what matters at that point in that context of the game, not what the black and white of the rule book says.
That’s why we have endless conversations here about this event or that decision made by X or Y at a top tournament, where several people inevitably say “but that’s not what the rule says” or “but that’s not how I’d call it at my level.”
Exactly right. Because at that level, you have to have more feel for the game than to just quote lines from the book (especially out of date ones). And it doesn’t matter one whit what someone would call at their local derby between the men’s 7′s on a Saturday. It’s just irrelevant, and I don’t know how else to explain why then to say – this is exactly what I’m learning and starting to understand right now as I progress to the next level.
This is why I dispute how valuable the “was this umpire right?” discussions are unless they centre on “how do I apply the right principles in MY game.”
As for the immediate questions Alex raises, I also wonder how relevant they are to most of our daily umpiring processes. They’re not about interpretation of rules which are universally applied, but literally scenarios that expose issues in the experimental variations that aren’t applicable to everyone on the forum and may never be. If they are, they will take on a modified form that takes these issues into account.
If people want to get into the nuts and bolts of an academic discussion, great. It helped me this weekend knowing that I’d thought through whether I’d allow a defender to clear a ball directed above her shoulder height by her teammate. I just don’t want anyone to get confused or anxious about things that don’t affect their games – umpiring well is already hard enough, isn’t it?
Focusing on the rules makes one a very technical, black and white umpire. When you’re starting out or at the lower levels, this can be a pretty good thing because your knowledge provides consistency that players and coaches don’t see in many umpires and the matches the level of the game.
***
Top umpires get very far away from this black and white view of the rules because getting decisions correct isn’t as important as managing what comes out of those decisions and communicating expectations for future behaviour. Hockey at the top levels is all about exceptions – incredible skills and abilities that come out of nowhere and surprise and amaze you. Your reaction is instinctive at this point, not thinking about Rule 9(g) or anything like that but having such a thorough knowledge of what the rules actually mean during a game that it informs a general spirit where if it’s not unfair, you stay out of it. In a lot of ways, you really do forget about the rules and feel the game instead.
So when it comes to the “own goal/defender saves on the line with high stick” question, think of it this way: if an attacker hits the ball square across the circle in attempt to pass to an open teammate, a defender attempts to intercept and it deflects high towards the goal and a second defender saves that ball from going in the net by using their stick above their shoulder, what would you do? Instinctively, you’d say play on. If it were an “own goal” exception, you’d say play on. Why?
Technically speaking, neither scenario fulfills the definition of a “shot at goal” as defined under the rules as in neither case “an attacker [is] intending to score by playing the ball towards the goal from within the circle.” But that doesn’t matter, because if the balls goes in the net under either scenario, it’s a goal. The spirit of the rule is to allow defenders to save goals, not just “shots at goal” as defined by the rule book. You know that because you know all the rules under the rule book and know that we all want to make the game about the players and the amazing things they do, not about the Terminology section and Rule 9.7. It just feels right, doesn’t it? That’s the call a top umpire would make without hesitation, because they would forget that the definition of a “shot at goal” doesn’t capture these situations.
The above answer reminds me of the phrase ‘separating the wheat from the chaff ‘. There is some ‘sense’ in it but also a great deal of ‘rubbish’.
In 2013 the FIH RC having adopted the EHL Own Goal Rule did not change the wording of Rule 9.7, but added a note to it pointing to Rule 8. – which should help clarify the situation concerning high deflections off own team players prevented from entering the goal by a field defender with an above should stick.
9.7 Players must not play the ball with any part of the stick when the ball is above shoulder height except that defenders are permitted to use the stick to stop or deflect a shot at goal at any height.
Defenders are also permitted to use the stickto stop or deflect the ball at any height if it is otherwise likely to enter the goal as a result of Mandatory Experimental Rule 8.
.
8 Method of scoring
Mandatory Experimental Rule
8.1 A goal is scored when:
a the ball is played by an attacker, or touches the stick or body of a defender, within the circle.
The answer to the question raised should have been ”Use your common sense, as you have done, to ensure fair play until such time as an amendment to the Rule or Rule Guidance is made.“
.
From the rule book of 2003, the year in which permit for a defender to stop or deflect a shot at the goal was introduced as an Mandatory Experiment.
PREFACE
THE CONTENT OF THE RULES BOOK The International Hockey Federation through its Hockey Rules Board (HRB) regards the Rules Book as a very important means of communication. A consistent understanding of the Rules by players, coaches, and umpires and other technical officials helps us all to play the game fairly and to enjoy the game game even more.
RULES INTERPRETATIONS
In the past in addition to the Rules Interpretations included in the Rules Book, briefing papers have occasionally been prepared primarily for umpires at international tournaments. However, we all play the game by the same set of Rules so interpretations in the Rules Book should be as complete as possible. Additional papers should be unnecessary. (my bold and underline) Accordingly, Appendix B (Rules Interpretations) in this 2003 edition has been significantly revised. It now incorporates the other briefing papers referred to above.
In 2004 the ”significant revisions” to FIH Rules Interpretations of 2003 were subsumed into a new format of rule book in which Guidance for Players and Umpires, previously on the page opposite the Rule page, were combined with Rules Interpretations (previously in an Appendix), and they together formed Rule Guidance, which was (and now is) written in italics beneath each Rule – but a great deal of both the previous Guidance and Interpretation was simply deleted – as were some Rules. The commitment to incorporating all briefing papers was ’forgotten’ and a separate Umpire Managers Briefing for FIH Umpires at Tournaments continued to be published. As this publication can be changed at will by the FIH Umpiring Committee it became the reference of choice, and the Rules of Hockey, the FIH Rules Committee bi-annual publication, the only official source of Rule, was ‘side-lined’.
Today, while some Rule Guidance is treated as ‘set in stone’ some others, on the whim of umpires, are dismissed as ‘notes’. For example ‘gains benefit‘ although deleted some years ago, is still ’set in stone’ while The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball is part of a ‘note’ – which is ignored if ’benefit’ is gained by a player hit with the ball and even when it is not : – see http://wp.me/pKOEk-VF
Ten years on from 2003 anyone who protests “But that is not what the Rules say” in any situation that arises in play, is regarded as ‘a dinosaur’ or an ‘old fuddy-duddy’. The Rules ‘don’t ‘matter’ they can be ‘forgotten’ and ‘common sense’ applied. But by who? Part of the results of such ‘forgetting’ and the application of ‘common sense’ is the deletion of forcing as an offence (because it was not enforced), the ignoring of ball shielding and barging by a player in possession of the ball, the ignoring of the intentionally lifted hit – not a shot at the goal, and there is a well established notion that an ‘on target’ shot at the goal cannot be dangerous (rather than must not be dangerous). I don’t think much of this sort of ‘common sense’, it’s not sensible.
The FIH RC (should) provide unambitious ‘interpretation’ of the wording of its own Rule (avoiding the use of ambiguous words and syntax in both Rule and Rule Guidance) and provide reasonably complete Guidance about how it is to be applied. The umpire ‘interprets’ the actions and intentions of players for Rule compliance. An umpire should not need to concern him or her self about the meanings of the words used in Rule or Rule Guidance, certainly not during the course of a match. That ‘interpretation’ (meaning of), should it be necessary to discover it, should be known and understood before an umpire sets foot on a pitch. Interpretation of action and intent, on the other hand, cannot take place off-pitch.
The word interpretation is itself ambiguous and so umpires stray where they should have no need to. What does this mean? :- The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball. or each these terms: legitimate evasive action ; legitimate tackle. It is not helpful when the word ‘voluntarily’ replaces ’intentionally’ for no apparent reason (and none offered) or ‘legitimate’ is used when in one instance it means ‘necessary’ or ‘genuine’ and in another ‘legal’. And how on earth is this part of the Guidance to Rule 9.11 to be interpreted while following the actions of players ? :-
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 (with the hand, foot or body) Is the offence ‘positioning’ ? Is the offence ‘intent’? (it can’t be either can it?) How, in any case, is the intent of positioning ‘seen’?
I opened with a question that was thrown up in 2010 because of an ambiguity caused by the use of the word ‘shot’ when there was no shot as a shot is defined. That’s the sort of thing that happens when Rule amendments (or Mandatory Experiments) are ‘tacked onto’ existing Rules instead of being integrated within them – the wording of the original Rule or Rule Guidance being modified to accord with the change. For example:- 9.7 Players must not play the ball with any part of the stick when the ball is above shoulder height except that defenders are permitted to use the stick to stop or deflect a ball entering the goal at any height. would have made the opening question unnecessary.
It’s quite extraordinary that with the introduction of the deflected own goal it does not appear to have occurred to the EHL Rules Committee that a deflection off a defender towards the goal could raise the ball to above shoulder height. But when Rule is inadequate for a circumstance that should have been foreseen, it cannot be just ‘forgotten’, it must be corrected. Umpires who understand the Rules ask for such corrections to be made and are in the meantime guided by their Association or Umpire Manager, so everyone is ‘on the same page’. Hockey umpiring is not about “MY game” or “MY level” or “MY interpretation of wording”.
The difference between a Rule and a Tournament Variation. Tournament regulations.
The first words in the current Rules of Hockey
Responsibility and Liability Participants in hockey must be aware of the Rules of Hockey and of other information in this publication. They are expected to perform according to the Rules.
The first part of a recent FIH Execuitive ‘announcement’ published on the FIH website.
The FIH Executive Board held one of its three annual meetings last weekend in Lausanne. It was the first time that the board had met since the elections of the new members at the FIH Congress in Kuala Lumpur last November and several items were on the agenda during the busy two days.
Most notably, the Executive Board decided to implement a 45-second shot clock for all penalty corners. After seeing that the time taken for penalty corners was gradually increasing, the Executive Board felt this was an important measure to speed up the game while still giving teams enough time to prepare for penalty corners. The rule is set to take effect in time for the Women’s Hockey World League Round 4 tournament in Argentina.
That announcement caused some confusion because the Rules Of hockey cannot be changed before the issue of the next rule book in 2015. WHWL Round 4 is in November 2013. It turns out that this announcement concerns an additional Tournament Regulation applicable only at FIH International Tournaments and is not a Rule of hockey, such that all participants need be aware of. The FIH Executive did not communicate correctly.
The misunderstanding caused became a spat on a hockey related website.
“Of course it does, as evidenced by the original post on this thread. When an announcement’s wording is somewhat ambiguous like it is here, having experience with years of rules and regulation changes at the FIH level helps establish context and the obviously not-so-common sense that informs the conclusion reached by posters other than you on this question.”
Well. There you are then. I don’t know what at the FIH level means even though, having been involved in both hockey stick manufacturer and coaching of International teams, I have years of experience of changes made to the FIH Rules of Hockey and also to Tournament Regulations, but it flows quite well and there are lots of words used.
I guess that participants need not worry about understanding the Rules of Hockey as long as they are aware that there are some and also know that there are kindly people who will sometimes give their opinion of the meaning and purpose of them – if asked very nicely. These opinions might in some instances turn out to be accurate, once unraveled and translated into Plain English, but in most cases I wouldn’t put any money on it: there not much evidence of participants performing according to the published Rules of Hockey at present.
.
The cause of this particular break down in communication doesn’t require years of experience of rules and regulation change at FIH level to solve. All the necessary information, including a copy of the current Tournament Regulations is to be found on the FIH website. The new additional tournament regulation will take effect before the Women’s Hockey World League Round 4 tournament in Argentina in November 2013.
.
It is good that the FIH Executive pay attention these things, even if not very carefully, but it’s similar to putting a new door-bell on a house that has sinking foundations and a leaky roof, useful but not a priority.
Field Hockey Rules. Voluntarily playing the ball with the body.
A small but representative sample of current umpiring practice in the application of Rule Guidance to Rule 9.11.
Rule 9.11 Field players must not stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their body.
Any ball/body contact will be a breach of this Rule but such contact is only a Breach of Rule, not an Offence, unless the contact is made in a way that conforms with the conditions given in the Rule Guidance – voluntarily played with the body or (the very odd) positioned with the intention of playing the ball with the body.
I don’t understand why a) voluntarily played with the body and b) positioned with the intention of playing the ball with the body. are both given. If the ball isintentionally played with the body the player must have been positioned where that could happen and if the player positions the body with the intention of playing the ball with the body that must be done voluntarily. If the ball is not played with the body that cannot be an Offence or even a Breach of the Rule – even if there was an intention to play the ball with the body. I do not see how therefore the positioning of a player or even positioning with intent to make a ball/body contact can be considered a ball contact Offence or even a Breach of Rule 9.11., in and of itself. (Positioning Offences generally relate to Rule 9.12. Obstruction)
Rule Guidance. It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player. The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball or if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way.
The Rule and the embedded Rule Guidance are to be read together as a whole, not in isolation from each other.
Current application appears to follow part of the following advice (gleaned from UK County Umpires Association Handbook in 2011):- “The notes to the foot body rule 9.11 say it is an offence ‘only’ when contact with the ball is ‘voluntary’, but in practice an accidental contact that alters the balance of play is just as much an offence as deliberately playing with foot or body.
This is just one example of interpreting rules consistently with your partner and with other umpires the teams will have. Sometimes their interpretation will differ from how the rule seems, to you, to read. But you must umpire play their way, and never apply your own version. If that leaves you uncomfortable then a bit of lateral thinking should soon enough make the same sense of it for you as it does for everyone else.”
That and similar such advice is not followed exactly, umpires often go beyond it. Even contact forced by an opponent or accidental contact, where there is clearly no advantage gained by the player hit with the ball, is generally penalised ‘automatically’ – this has become a reflex action, not a judgement.
Umpires who at first feel that the ‘interpretation’ applied by ‘everyone’ is unfair or contrary to the Rules of Hockey or contrary to common sense are told :- “Sometimes their interpretation will differ from how the rule seems, to you, to read. But you must umpire play their way, and never apply your own version. If that leaves you uncomfortable then a bit of lateral thinking should soon enough make the same sense of it for you as it does for everyone else.” (and they generally are ‘told’, such instructions it must be appreciated are very rarely given in writing).
Such application is then justified because ‘everyone ‘ umpires in that way so they “mustbe umpiring in the way that ‘the FIH’ wants them to” to quote the oft used circular reasoning. That may be so, I don’t know the name of the individual who is referred to as ‘the FIH‘, but from the wording of the Rule Guidance it clearly isn’t the way in which the FIH Rules Committee (the sole Rule Authority) intend this Rule to be applied.
The first sentence of the Rule Guidance It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field playermay be out of date now as it was not altered when the ‘gains benefit’ exception to the Guidance was withdrawn. If it had been updated it should read It is not an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player. The player commits an offence only if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ballbecause there is not now an exception to justify the word always,that should have been deleted. But, as can be seen, from the instructions given to Level One candidates by the Umpire Coach quoted above there is a reluctance (or refusal) to accept that ‘gains benefit’ has been deleted. (This refusal is based on a note posted on the FIH website in February 2007, three weeks after the issue of thew 2007-9 Rules of Hockey, which apparently restored the deleted Guidance clause. But this appears to have been an unconstitutional act which may have upset the members of the FIH Rules Committee,the clause was not restored to the Rules of Hockey in the 2009-11 or 2011-13 or 2013-15 issues of the rule book. Six years on it must be assumed that the FIH Rules Committee do not intend that it will be – at least not in its previous form.).
How this ….or if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way.is to be judged remains unexplained. The meaning of the words is clear but the context in which they are to be applied is not. For example: – how can any player who is beyond playing distance of the ball be seen to be positioning with the intention of stopping the ball in a certain way?
It is, I think, reasonable to assume that this clause applies to actions taken by a tackler who is within playing distance of the ball; actions such as diving into or across an opponent who is in possession of the ball. It certainly seems unreasonable – assuming the player in question is in a normal playing stance – to ask an umpire to determine the ball playing intentions of a defender who is positioned or positioning beyond playing distance of the ball; what would be the criteria to watch for – other than not in possession of a hockey stick?
It also seems unreasonable to assume that because a player is hit with the ball he or she intended to be so hit or deliberately positioned with that intention – unless of course the player clearly made no attempt to use the stick to play the ball when they could reasonably have attempted to do so. Failure to play the ball with the stick, when there was a genuine attempt to do so, cannot reasonably be seen as an intention to play the ball with the body (but from the evidence in the video clips, it is most often seen in that way).
Field Hockey. Interpretation of Rules and Rule Guidance.
Consider the following statements and conclusion.
Nothing is better than eternal happiness.
A ham sandwich is better than nothing.
Therefore, a ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness.
Nickerson (1986) Quoted in Thinking and Deciding by Jonathan Baron
Common sense tells us that the conclusion is not logical even if the difference between the first “nothing” and the second one is not consciously examined. .
When considering two terms that are abstract, but perhaps more mundane than “eternal happiness”, and comparing them with other abstracts, rather than objects like ham sandwiches, the duplicity (or lack of thought) might not be so evident and it may be a great deal more difficult to apply ‘common sense’ to dismiss (or correct) similarly ‘odd’ conclusions.
The “Nothing” which begins the first sentence is a short way of saying”There is not anything” or “No known thing”. In the second it means “not having anything”and the conclusion given in the third line does not follow from these terms.
It only takes a moment to reflect on the meaning of words in the context in which they are used in writing to come to a rational or ‘common sense’ interpretation of the meaning intended by the writer at the time of writing each of the first two dispirit statements. The conclusion is of course a deliberate ‘play on words’, a pun.
We use such shortcuts all the time when speaking to each other. Generally, but not always, the context of the conversation makes the use of such colloquialism acceptable and understood in the way the speaker means them to be understood. (“having nothing” is an oxymoron in this context and the oft heard “I ain’t got nothing” is an ‘accepted’ nonsense in speech which people ‘know’ – but often don’t understand, even when it is pointed out to them, so ‘accepted’ is the meaning – means the opposite of what the words should convey).
In writing, it is usually necessary to be more careful about jargon, slang and short-cuts of expression, because in the absence of the person ‘speaking’ they can be ambiguous, as we have seen. Care is especially required when writing rules (about anything in any area) which not everyone wants to accept or obey (If there was a law which everyone wanted to accept and obey at all times and forever, that law would be unnecessary). In such circumstances ambiguity may be exploited, even to the point where the law or rule is interpreted and the interpretation accepted and then applied in a way opposite or divergent to that intended by those who drafted it. Many lawyers make their livings from such ambiguities – creating them and/or defending or prosecuting the results of them.
The practice of law in an office or even a court-room does not have the same time pressures and need for rapid communication as the umpiring of a hockey match. When an umpire says “foot” or “feet”when asked why the whistle was blown s/he will rarely ( if ever) say “voluntarily made ball/body contact” but that should be what is meant. It is inevitable that short terms will be used on the pitch and jargon will be used between umpires when talking about Rules and the application of them to incidents in hockey matches. It is also almost inevitable that over time they will be misunderstood or misused.
The danger is that the original meaning or intent of the Rule and Rule Guidance may be lost in such communications, Not everyone interprets given words in the same way. The original wording may not be consulted very often, and both personal opinion and personal bias will have an influence on how words are interpreted. “Foot”, for example, has come for many to mean any ball/foot contact no matter how caused or unavoidable; in fact those who insist that no unintentional ball/foot contact can be an offence (which is presently true) seem to be in the minority.
The ‘cascading’ of verbal interpretation as a means of coaching – in preference to using the written rulebook - is a serious problem. Passing information accurately between individuals ‘by word of mouth’ is known to be notoriously unreliable (each one in the chain perhaps adding their own ‘slant’ or ‘spin’ and/or leaving out ‘unimportant parts’) but we seem to be ‘stuck ‘ with that approach. Because of it we have various ‘interpretations’ of “legitimate”, “dangerous”, “benefit”, “attempting”and “voluntarily”; We have “positioning” seen as an offence and so, apparently, is “intention”.
The published Rules of Hockey are far from the path to eternal happiness but these variable interpretations of the Rules seem to be ‘sandwiches’ – of myth and invention – made by ‘hams’. Lady Mondegreen will enjoy her picnic.
Field Hockey. An FIH Umpire recently declared “There is no gap between Rule application and the FIH Rules of Hockey“. Having seen many of the televised matches of the hockey tournament at the London Games and observed that:-
No ‘on target’ shot at goal will be considered dangerous play, even if the ball hits and injures a defender.
Wild and dangerous use of the stick is generally ignored.
All ball/body contacts are penalised as if they are intentional playing of the ball, unless opponents can play-on with advantage (in the circle that means score a goal). All video referrals in this area asked a question about “contact with the ball” never “Did the defender play the ball?” and intention was never mentioned.
Ball shielding to prevent an opponent, who intends to play the ball and is within playing distance of the ball, from playing the ball, is no longer an offence.
Moving bodily into an opponent while in possession of the ball is no longer an offence.
Bodily blocking out-runners at a penalty corner is no longer considered third-part obstruction or barging.
Intentional raising of the ball with a hit is not now considered an offence in any part of the field.
The hard forehand edge hit is no longer an offence.
It is no longer necessary to even attempt to make the ball stationary before a free is taken.
Same team members are permitted to be within 5m of a free taken in the opposing 23m area, even if they do directly influence play.
(The Rules of Hockey for 2013-15, which have been recently published, not surprisingly, do not contain any of these changes).
I have to agree there is no gap. This situation could not be described as ‘a gap’. A better analogy would be “Ships that passed in the night some years ago and are now in different oceans – one, called the Rules of Hockey, is however sinking, apparently deliberately holed below the water-line, and it may soon be lost without trace. The other may be called Interpretation or Application, but as there appears to be no documents associated with this vessel, it is impossible to be certain what it is called. The information there is has come by word of mouth: it could be a pirate, it’s certainly unauthorized.
A statement by a senior umpire recently posted on a closed Internet field hockey board.
Despite what some would have you believe, there are no major conflicts between the rule book, how that is interpreted by FIH umpires and how the FIH wants the game blown.
Let’s take another look at that statement. What is the umpire who wrote it claiming? Well he declares you are being lied to by “some” who claim there are major conflicts between:-
1) The content of the rulebook and the way the FIH want the Rules ‘blown’ (applied).
2) What is written in the book and how that is interpreted by FIH Umpires – i.e. conflict about the meaning of the language used in the Rules and Rule Guidance and also conflict about the purpose of the advice, Rule and Rule Guidance that is given in the rulebook – the intent of the Rules.
3) The way the content of the rulebook is interpreted by FIH umpires and how the FIH want the Rules applied.
I agree there is no conflict between the content of the rulebook and the way the FIH wants the Rules applied. The Rules are drafted by the FIH Rules Committee and approved by the FIH Executive. In matters of Rules for Conduct of Play, equipment specs and related areas, theses two bodies are “the FIH”, so what is written in the Rules of Hockey is what the FIH want. This degree of truth lends credence to the falsehood that there is no major conflict.
The conflict is in areas 2) and 3) How FIH Umpires (or any other group of umpires) choose to interpret and apply the Rules and Rule Guidance i.e. how they interpret what the FIH want or in other words, how they interpret what the FIH Rules Committee have published in the Rules of Hockey.
The same individual who wrote the quoted statement has suggested on the previous occasions he has submitted the same declaration (at least half-a-dozen times previously), that if umpires were not doing what the FIH wanted they (the umpires) would not continue to be reappointed. There is something in that, but then who replaces them? Umpires who have been trained in the same way by the same people who coached the current crop? It is not as easy to make sweeping changes as we might like after years of verbal ‘cascading’ of personal opinion. This is not a matter of trimming a few dead branches, the whole tree has to be uprooted and a new one planted, the core is rotten.
The FIH Appointments Committee should not have anything at all to do with the drafting and adoption of Rules and Rule Guidance, and (in theory) the FIH Umpiring Committee only a consultative role, pertaining perhaps to the impact on or difficulty for umpires in applying changes made to Rule or Rule Guidance i.e. those drafted by the FIH Rules Committee for approval by the FIH Executive. To this end the FIH Umpiring Ciommittee produce the UMB (Umpire Managers Briefing for Umpires at FIH Tournaments) – which is NOT the Rules of Hockey and can never conflict with the Rules of Hockey, but in fact the UMB is used to alter the the intended application of the Rules of Hockey.
Going back to 2) - Who or what is the conflict of the FIH Umpires with and why is there conflict? The answer is a) the meaning of language b) common sense and c) fairness – so, everybody and everything – and it is done in the name of ‘consistency’. So how are they getting away with it?
They get away with it because they are almost unchallenged, largely because of a general apathy, and because they issue statements in Internet forums like the one above – along the lines ‘We are right so we must be right’ e.g. “This is what other (or all) FIH Umpires do” are typical ‘conclusive arguments’ – statements and attitudes designed to resist and repel any ‘outside’ influence on how they umpire.
FIH Umpire Managers and FIH Umpire Coaches behave as if they ARE “the FIH”, even some individual FIH Umpires do so and can become furious if their opinion is challenged. They like to treat everybody outside the umpiring fraternity as if they are players under their authority on a pitch during a hockey match – where questioning may be treated as dissent and met with punishment. “Despite what some would have you believe, there are no major conflicts between the rule book, how that is interpreted by FIH umpires and how the FIH wants the game blown.“
The conflicts ‘boil down’ to understanding the meaning and intent of the Rules and Rule Guidance provided by the FIH Rules Committee. Major conflict is easy to demonstrate.
Major conflict: No reading of the Rule 9.8 or any other Rule could possibly lead to the conclusion that an on target shot at the goal cannot be dangerous play.
Major conflict: No reading of Rule 9.12 could possibly lead to the conclusion that the player attempting to tackle in the picture shown is not obstructed – but quite obviously neither player is expecting an ‘obstruction’ call and the umpire did not recognize the ball holder’s actions (or lack of action) as obstructive play – ball shielding to prevent a legitimate tackle.
Previous umpiring practice has led to ignorance of the Rule – and not only this one. How umpires apply the Rules, not what is written in the Rules of Hockey, has come to dictate what the Rules are or are perceived to be.
.
.
.
.
Major conflict: No reading of Rule 9.9 could possibly lead to the conclusion that intentionally raising the ball into the circle with a hit is not an offence or can be ignored unless dangerous.(It is sloppy of the FIH Executive to allow contradiction of this point in the UMB )
Major conflict: No reading of Rule 9.11. could possibly lead to the conclusion that all ball/body contacts are offences and that any ball/body contact may be penalised. FIH Umpires and others will be quick to point out in forums and in conversation that they completely agree with this observation, but ‘in practice’ all ball/body contacts are treated as offences.
Major conflict:No reading of Rule 13.1 (Procedure for taking a Free Hit) could possibly lead to the conclusion that, having taken a self-pass when an opponent is still within 5m, the taker is then entitled to move the ball 5m before that opponent may challenge for the ball or otherwise influence the play of the taker (Here again what has been added to the UMB – taken from previous umpiring interpretation – contradicts the Rule Guidance given in Rules of Hockey). If you have any doubt about that then read the Rule and Rule Guidance.
My name is ‘some’ and I am one of thousands who disagree with the statement that there is no conflict between the published Rules of Hockey and the way in which they are applied.
This is a story about corruption, dark intrigue and world domination via field hockey……not really, that is just an echo from something silly that I read. This is the tale of how the clause relating to the gaining of a benefit from an unintentional body/ball contact came to be deleted from the Rules of Hockey- Rule 9.11 – but the text remaining in the Guidance to that Rule being interpreted as if the deletion had not taken place – it’s a sad story.
To begin this convoluted tale we need to look at the relevant Rule and Rule Guidance in the Rules of Hockey in 2006 – the year in which “unless that player or their team benefits from this” last appeared in a rulebook. Following a change of page format and a major rewrite in 2004, the ball/body contact Rule looked rather ‘spartan’ compared to previous versions.
Rules of Hockey 2006 9.10 Field players must not stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their body.
It is not an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player, unless that player or their team benefits from this.
No offence is committed if the ball hits the hand holding the stick but would otherwise have hit the stick.
At the time the Rules of Hockey were revised and printed annually but as there was only one minor change to the Rules of Hockey in 2006 (relating to the curve in a stick) the FIH decided to issue a single page supplement, to be added to the 2005 edition, and not a completely new rulebook.
It is necessary here to ‘side-track’ a little and bring in ‘intentionally’, which in various forms also disappeared and reappeared in the Rules of Hockey in period 2003 -2007. In 2007 the wording of the ball/body contact Rule was revised by the HRB, to reintroduce ‘intention’ in Guidance, reference to intention having been removed from the Rule in 2004. Previously this was the ball/body contact Rule.
Rules of Hockey 2003 Rule 13.1.2 Use of body, hands, feet by players other than goalkeepers. Players shall not:- a. stop or catch the ball with the hand There is nothing to prevent players using their hands to protect themselves from dangerously raised balls.
b. intentionally stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their bodies.
It is not automatically an offence if the ball hits the foot or body of a player. On many occasions when a ball hits the foot or body of a player an offence will not have taken place and play should continue. It is only an offence if the ball hits the foot or body of a player and that player: • moved intentionally into the path of the ball, or • made no effort to avoid being hit, or • was positioned with the clear intention to stop the ball with the foot or body, or • gains benefit.
The 2003 version of the Rule was not perfect but nonetheless quite good (I had – and still have – reservations about “was positioned with the clear intention to stop the ball with the foot or body” unless the ‘positioned’ player is within playing distance of the balland obviously not intending to use the stick. We have ‘crack-pots’ who declare that a defender positioned on the goal-line intends to use the body if the ball is missed with the stick – but that’s another story.). The ‘fly in the ointment’ was It is only an offence if the ball hits the foot or body of a player and that player gains benefit which by 2005 had been change to It is not an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player, unless that player or their team benefits from this. The ‘gains benefit clause’, (I have underlined) as it became known, became a problem because many umpires insisted on interpreting any ball/body contact, particularly any foot/ball contact, no matter how caused, as of benefit to the team of the player hit (or were told to do so). This was easy to umpire and consistent, but it turned the intent of the Rule ‘on its head’. The ‘gained benefit’ clause effectively always ‘trumped’ – It is not automatically an offence if the ball hits the foot or body of a player – body ball contact was assumed always to be ‘of benefit’ and so an offence, and penalised unless opponents could play on with advantage.
In 2007 the HRB presumably in an attempt to clarify or reassert the intent of the Rule Guidance and redress the damage done by removing the word ‘intentionally‘ from the Rule, removed the ‘gains benefit’ clause – so that what then became Rule 9.11 read:-
Rules of Hockey 2007/8 9.11. Field players must not stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their body.
It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot,hand or body of a field player. The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball or if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way.
It is not an offence if the ball hits the hand holding the stick but would otherwise have hit the stick.”
So now reference to intention was restored (and expanded), but in Rule Guidance not the Rule, and reference to the gaining of an advantage or benefit from a ball/body contact that was not made voluntarily was removed.
Then something quite extraordinary happened. It was communicated to the public on the FIH website as follows:-
Rules of Hockey 2007 Official FIH explanation concerning ‘rule 9.11’ 07 Feb 2007 13:07 With the turn of the year, many more nations are now using the 2007/8 Rules of Hockey. The FIH is always keen to receive feedback on any rules changes or, for that matter, any existing rules. We receive this through various informal networks but also scan the web based discussion forums regularly.
An issue we have picked up through a few national associations, is uncertainty about rule 9.11: “field players must not stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their body”.
Rule 9.11 of the Rules of Hockey 2007/8 states:
“Field players must not stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their body. It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player. The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball or if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way. It is not an offence if the ball hits the hand holding the stick but would otherwise have hit the stick.”
Compared to the 2005/6 Rules, the note in italics has been changed in an endeavour to reinforce the intended interpretation of this rule. The following advice has been produced to clarify this interpretation so that the rule is applied consistently.
The 2005/6 Rules indicated that it was not an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player “unless that player or their team benefits from this”. However, as with other rules, this continues to be an offence if benefit is gained. Rule 9.11 should therefore continue to be applied taking into account any benefit gained by the player or their team.
This strange ‘explanation’ restored the version of the Guidance which existed prior to 2005 and reversed the deletion of the ‘gains benefit’ clause.
Why is what happened strange and extraordinary ? Because it was unconstitutional, contravening all the previous statements by the FIH Executive and the FIH Hockey Rules Board concerning the established procedure for amending Rule and directly challenged the sole authority of the HRB for the amendment of the Rules of Hockey – and because the gains benefit clause referred to was not in the Rules of Hockey 2007.
A month after the issue of the Rules of Hockey for 2007/8 and before there was time for any meaningful trial of the game sans the ‘gains benefit’ clause, we are informed. After much discussion especially with input from Peter von Reth(as Hockey Rules Board member and Chairman of the Umpiring Committee) and after agreement by Hockey Rules Board Chairman Wolfgang Rommel, the following guidance note has been prepared. The Chair of the HRB is an individual not himself the FIH Hockey Rules Board any more than Peter von Reth was – or any more than he as an individual was the the whole of FIH Umpiring Committee - and there was no indication that the announced reversal had been approved by the FIH Executive.
The procedure for amending the Rules of Hockey is easy enough to find on the FIH website under FAQ in the Rules section. http://www.fih.ch/en/sport/rules/faq What was done with the announcement on 7th February 2007 flouted every point of that procedure, particularly those mentioned in Q/A 18 – 20.
Just as bad was the inane justification for the interpretation that was presented as the “Official FIH explanation concerning ‘rule 9.11’”. The 2005/6 Rules indicated that it was not an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player “unless that player or their team benefits from this”. However, as with other rules, this continues to be an offence if benefit is gained.
That pretends that the deletion of “unless that player or their team benefits from this“. by the HRB after 2006 should be interpreted as if the words remained in the Rule Guidance. How could this have been, when they clearly did not ? It all seems to hang on the word ‘is‘ which was emphasized in bold text. This this continues to be an offence if benefit is gained. contrasted with not an offence unless that player or their team benefitsfrom this there is a change of syntax but I can’t see a change in meaning between these statements.
The Hockey Rules Board, not surprisingly, were not it seems impressed by the circumvention of an amendment to the wording of the Rule Guidance they had authorised only a month previously, but no immediate action was taken, so this ‘Official explanation ‘ was accepted as applying to the Rules of Hockey 2007-9. Subsequent Committee meetings of the Members of the HRB however declined to ratify the unconstitutional ‘consultation’ with their Chairman in Feb 2007.
Rules of Hockey 2009-11 the clause “unless that player or their team benefits from this” was not restored to the embedded Rule Guidance
Rules of Hockey 2011-13 the clause “unless that player or their team benefits from this” was again not restored to the embedded Rule Guidance
Rules of Hockey 2013 -15 the clause “unless that player or their team benefits from this” has not been restored to the embedded Rule Guidance.
(I labour the time-span intentionally – six years compared with three weeks)
The ‘gains benefit’ clause of the body/ball contact Rule was and is therefore defunct following the expiration of 2007-9 Rules of Hockey and until such time the FIH Rules Committee (the renamed HRB) choose to restore it – if they do. Naturally the Umpiring Committee did not and do not accept this, and umpires are still being coached as if the ‘gains benefit’ clause is and always has remained part of the text of Rule 9.11.
There should of course be a ‘gained unfair benefit’ clause – both parties are at fault – but it should be an amended version, not the ‘catch all’ previously given. There is a need for penalty when a goal is directly prevented with a ball/body contact by a defending field-player and there has been no offence by a member of the the attacking team. There is also a case for calling an offence when there is an accidental body/ball contact by a player in possession of the ball in the opponent’s circle, when possession is retained or some other benefit, such as a pass to a team-mate, accrues, but no more than that is required.
The introduction of the field hockey self pass threw up some issues during the experimental stage which were coped with on the spot during the Experiment Period by the introduction of what was seen to be a ‘common sense interpretation’ – an ‘interpretation’ which restricted the actions of any opponent who was with 5m of the ball when a self pass was taken.
I strongly disagree that such restrictions are an appropriate way of dealing with retreating defenders ‘caught’ within 5m of the ball when a self-pass is taken – but I have written about that elsewhere in this blog – this article is about the use by umpires of the advice given in the Umpire Manager’s Briefings for Umpires at FIH Tournaments (i.e International level hockey) to introduce Rule Guidance and even new Rule to the Rules of Hockey as ‘interpretation’.
I use here the briefing notes about the Free-Hit (which I always refer to as a free or a free-ball because the penalty is not necessarily executed with a hit) from the UMB as a recent example of this practice.
The Umpire Manager’s briefing for Umpires.
Free Hits
•All opponents must be at least 5 metres from the ball •For free hits awarded to the attack within their attacking 23 metre area -all players must be at least 5 metres from the ball
In all situations -if taken quickly and a player is within 5 metres of the ball but is not playing, attempting to play the ball or influencing play, the taking of the free hit does not need to be delayed; this same player can play, attempt to play the ball or try to influence play, once the ball has travelled 5 metres–be consistent in your judgment of this.
•Attacking free hits awarded within 5 metres of the circle are taken back to the nearest point 5 metres from the circle.
. The Rules of Hockey Rule 13.2 Procedures for taking a free hit, centre pass and putting the ball back into play after it has been outside the field : All parts of this Rule apply as appropriate to a free hit, centre pass and putting the ball back into play after it has been outside the field.
a the ball must be stationary
b opponents must be at least 5 metres from the ball
If an opponent is within 5 metres of the ball, they must not interfere with the taking of the free hit or must not play or attempt to play the ball. If this player is not playing the ball, attempting to play the ball or influencing play, the free hit need not be delayed.
c when a free hit is awarded to the attack within the 23 metres area, all players other than the player taking the free hit must be at least 5 metres from the ball
.
It will be noted that part of the advice given in the UMB has been highlighted (as it is in the current publication) and the highlighted part is a variation of the Rule Guidance given in the Rules of Hockey. In fact it is more than that because the Guidance in the Rules of Hockey is about action thatcould delaythe taking of a free, but – because of the given Guidance – need not do so. The highlighted part (in the UMB) is about action that takes place after the free has been taken, an entirely different context. It perhaps raises the strange question “Is a free not taken until the taker has moved 5m with the ball – or alternatively, moved the ball 5m?” – This late revision has not been properly thought through.
The only legitimate ways to vary the Rules of Hockey, which includes the embedded Guidance, are by amendment to the published Rules of Hockey, which is a bi-annual publication, or by the issue of Rule Variation in FIH Tournament Regulations. The letter below explains when and where such variation may be used.
. Extract from the above FIH document FIH Tournament Regulations deal with the management and presentation of FIH world-level competitions. To enhance the profile of these competitions, Regulations are sometimes introduced which vary the Rules of Hockey. An example is that a Regulation currently specifies a green card indicates a two minute suspension whereas the Rules of Hockey specify a green card indicates a warning.
To encourage consistency in international hockey, such Regulations should be applied to all senior and under-21 international matches. However, the application of such Regulations to any other level of hockey is not endorsed by FIH. All other hockey should be played solely in accordance with the Rules of Hockey.
Appendix 9 contains the current Rules Variations to the Rules of Hockey.
There are no variations to Rule 13.2 Procedures for taking a free hit.
.
What the above means, when taken together, is that if the highlighted part of the Free Hits is regarded as Rule Guidance then the UMB is being used to circumvent correct procedure for the amendment of the Rules of Hockey, even at International level. In other words FIH Officials are not following the FIH’s own regulations. There is just no way that highlighted advice from the UMB could be said to legitimately apply to any hockey, never mind all hockey.
If this variation is to be incorporated into the Rules of Hockey (and I sincerely hope it will not be because I believe there are better alternatives) then that can only occur with the issue of the Rules of Hockey in 2013.(that didn’t happen, so now 2015) If it is to be introduced only at International level then a Rule Variation to that effect has to be included in the FIH Tournament Regulations – in the same way that the revised stick bow measuring device was added to them at the beginning of 2012. It’s odd that the rules Committee did not take the opportunity at that time to adjust the Guidance to the ‘Free Hit’ – maybe they don’t intend to.
The proposed changes to the Rules of Hockey for 2013-15 are now known, there is alteration to the free, it may now be directly lifted with any stroke except a hit (making the term Free Hit even more redundant) but there has been (sadly) no amendment to the procedure for taking or the 5m requirements connected with the self-pass.
.
That ‘Briefings’ follow Rule and Rule Guidance, not lead or dictate it, was last set out clearly in the Contents of the 2002 Rules of Hockey thus:- (my colour variations)
RULES’ INTERPRETATIONS
“In the past, in addition to the Rules Interpretations included in the Rules Book, briefing papers have occasionally been prepared primarily for umpires at international tournaments. However, we all play the game by the same set of Rules so interpretations in the Rules Book should be as complete as possible. Additional papers should be unnecessary. Accordingly, Appendix B (RulesInterpretations) in this 2002 edition has been significantly revised. It now incorporates the other briefing papers referred to above. At the same time the layout and some parts of the text have been simplified.”
******************************
The Rulebook underwent reformatting and a major rewrite in 2004 and much of the text was stripped out. It was not seen as necessary to repeat the above reminder of the ‘status’ of ‘briefings vis a vis the Rules. That is unfortunate, but it is clear from the FIH letter referred to above (which was issued in 2010) that ‘briefings’ follow the Rules of Hockey not the other way about. Briefings cannot conflict with Rules embedded Rule Guidance of the Rules of Hockey and should not be used to create new and different Rule Guidance; they are for general advice and for the clarification of existing Rule and Rule Guidance.
The oft heard lament that “ ‘they’ are always changing the Rules” is not in fact the case, if ‘they’ is the FIH Rules Committee. But if ‘they’ are Umpire Coaches or individual umpires or groups of umpires, and that seems to so, then there are grounds for complaint. There is certainly cause for concern, but umpires at club level cannot be held to be responsible for confusion, when an UMB published by the FIH introduces variation to the Rules of Hockey without following the proper procedures and complying with the guidelines published by the FIH – especially when umpires are told on the FIH website that the UMB contains useful guidance for all umpires. It is even more worrying to see senior umpires and others writing on forums about “the latest interpretations” to come from this or that Tournament, especially when such ‘interpretations’ are personal opinion and/or invention without any Rule backing at all. The most pernicious of these to date is the declaration that a shot which is clearly towards the goal cannot be dangerous. which appeared ‘out of the blue’ in television commentary at the 2008 Olympics and was heard to be said to players by an umpire during the Women’s World Cup in 2010.
It would be helpful when referring to ‘The FIH‘ while discussing publications and authority, to distinguish between The FIH Executive , The FIH Rules Committee, The FIH Equipment Committee, and The FIH Umpring Committee.
The FIH Rules Committee have sole authority, granted by The FIH Executive, for the content of the published Rules of Hockey; the FIH Umpiring Committee advise on the coaching of umpires according to the Rules of Hockey, and to that end, are responsible for the content the UMB. The procedures for changes for rule and Rule Guidance are further explained here:-
18. What is the procedure for developing a rules change?
ideas come from a variety of sources including players, coaches, umpires, the media, officials at events, and so on; ideas either come through National Associations and other groups or are referred directly to the HRB ideas are analysed and discussed in the Rules Committee usually over a period of time in two or three meetings; if the change is a relatively minor one, the Rules Committee may then be able to recommend a change; if a significant change is involved, further investigations will take place and a working group is set up to look at all the implications; significant changes are progressed through trials and mandatory experiments having received comment and advice, the Rules Committee will come to a conclusion; it then prepares a report about proposed rules changes for the Executive Board of the FIH (which will also have sanctioned related trials and mandatory experiments if they have taken place); the Executive Board will either agree the change or refer it back for further consideration by the Rules Committee; the Executive Board cannot directly amend a proposed change; it does not happen often, but a change might then have immediate effect; otherwise the change is incorporated in the next Rules Book.
19. When does a rules change become effective?
Officially the 1 January date applies to all international competitions but National Associations have discretion to decide the implementation date at national level.
20. Who is ultimately responsible for rules changes?
The Rules Committee comes to a conclusion about any changes it considers desirable and prepares a report for the Executive Board of the FIH. The Executive Board will either agree the change or refer it back for further consideration by the Rules Committee; the Executive Board cannot directly amend a proposed change. Thus the ultimate responsibility rests with the Executive Board.
Note: that not even the FIH Executive Board can directly amend a proposed change to the Rules of Hockey (Rule and Rule Guidance). It would therefore be impossible for the Umpiring Committee to amend Rule Guidance via a UMB even in ‘consultation’ with the Rules Committee (which seems to take the form of a chat with the Chairman of the Rules Committee in which s/he is told what the FIH Umpiring Committee is going to do).
The existence of Rule variation and new Rules in the European Hockey League, a Tournament for club teams, further complicates an already complicated situation. Someone needs to ‘gather the reins’.
Field Hockey: Dangerous play and ball/body contact myths
There are a number assertions for which no support in Rule or Rule Guidance is to be found but which are firmly held to be true by many participants. By umpires (because of coaching and observed ‘practice’) and by players (because of the way umpires apply the Rules). The latter is called ‘player expectation’ by umpires and is used as a justification for continuing to interpret and apply the Rule in the way they do. This process gives rise to ‘urban myths’. I am going to explore here those myths connected to the various Rules which are brought to bear when one player plays the ball at or into another, or a player ‘plays’ the ball with their body, intentionally or otherwise.
The myths
The assertions made in these ‘myths’ are generally corruption, misinterpretation or even inversion of Rules or the Rules Guidance. Occasionally they are pure invention, the creation of a myth based on the acceptance of a previous evolved myth called ‘practice’.
“All ball/body contacts should be penalised” (are offences). A contradiction of the Rule Guidance It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player. The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball or if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way.
. “Defenders have an obligation to defend their feet”(and should be penalised if they fail to do so even when contact is forced by an opponent). Here an assumption is made that any defender positioned to intercept the ball or positioning to tackle, who is hit with the ball, intended to be so hit (without the intent there would be no offence). There are no grounds for such a sweeping assumption, each incident must be judged separately on clear evidence of intent or willingness to be hit with the ball.
The speed with which the offence of forcing such contact (specifically an offence until 1st January 2011) has been turned into an offence by the player the ball is forced into, is astonishing. Such forcing is now supposed to be dealt with by “other Rules”so it should still be considered an offence – the problem is that the “other Rules” have not been identified by the Rules Committee, but dangerous play and intimidation are both possibilities where the forcing is powerfully done.
. “All ball/body contacts are of benefit or advantage to the player making the contact and disadvantage opponents”. Not only is this untrue it is irrelevant. Gaining benefit from a ball/body contact is not an offence and nor does it create an offence. The gaining of a benefit is mentioned in the Rules in relation to the playing of advantage when an offence has been committed. It is no longer used to create an offence from a breach of Rule (such as stopping the ball with the body) that was not an offence (because it was not intentional). Advantage : it is not necessary for every offence to be penalised when no benefit is gained by the offender ; unnecessary interruptions to the flow of the match cause undue delay and irritation”.
Note this advice to umpires is written in relation to offences, not unintentional breaches of Rule.
The only other reference to gaining benefit is in relation to time-wasting.
In the absence of an offence, like deliberate time-wasting, disadvantaging opponents is part of the game, being competitive – tackling, scoring goals etc. etc.
.
“Defenders who are positioned behind their sticks intend to play the ball with their body if they miss it with the stick. Without clear evidence of intent to use the body to play the ball i.e. of an offence, there is no reason a player should not be directly behind the stick when stopping the ball . Positioning the body behind the stick is a standard playing technique when it is not known to which side of the body the ball might be played and is not of itself evidence of intent to play the ball with the body – the assumption must be that if the player misses the ball with the stick when attempting to play it with the stick, such a miss is unintentional, and in such circumstances body position is not relevant (assuming the player is on her/his feet rather than lying or sitting or kneeling on the ground)
.
“A defender who is positioned on/in front of the goal-line when hit with the ball must be penalised with a penalty stroke” I have heard this one trotted out at Level One umpire induction courses on several occasions but it can be true only when there has been no prior dangerous play i.e. the shot is not dangerous and the player hit has clearly and intentionally played the ball with the body rather than the stick.
Certainty that there has been a deliberate offence is required before a penalty stroke may be awarded. The withdrawal of the ‘gains benefit’ clause has, unfortunately, removed the only ground on which the accidental prevention of a goal with the body could have been penalised.
.
“A defender positioned on the goal-line causes danger”. It is an illogical inversion of fact to suggest that the positioning of the defender is the cause of dangerous play. Such positioning can cause the play of the player propelling the ball to be dangerous but does not cause the play that is dangerous. If the ball is not propelled at (the position of) another player there can be no dangerously played ball. The distinction may seem subtle even though it isn’t, and language can used to bamboozle those not paying attention, but one might just as well say that the ground causes rain to make it wet, as suggest that defensive positioning prior to the ball being propelled causes dangerous play or is dangerous play.
What is true is that any player who raises the ball at another player at a velocity that could cause injury to that player has endangered that player i.e. has played the ball in a way that is dangerous to others.
.
“A defender who positions on the goal-line accepts any risk of so positioning” ( Is “asking for it”).
FIH statement from the Preface to the Rules of Hockey.
Responsibility and Liability Participants in hockey must be aware of the Rules of Hockey and of other information in this publication. They are expected to perform according to the Rules. Emphasis is placed on safety. Everyone involved in the game must act with consideration for the safety of others.
All players accept the risk of accidental injury but do not, and cannot be expected to, accept risks associated with any action by another participant that is a breach of the Rules.
For example Rule 13.3.1 (concerning second and subsequent shots at goal during a penalty corner – which is the same criteria as in open play) It is permitted to raise the ball to any height (while shooting at the goal) but this must not be dangerous. Defenders do not accept the risk (and nor should they be asked or expected to) that a ball will be intentionally propelled at their position (at them) in a dangerous or reckless way. They do accept the risk of, for example, accidental deflections, rebounds and miss-hits. It is disingenuous for a shooter to claim s/he was shooting at the goal and not at the player who was, prior to the shot, positioned in front of the goal on the line of the shot or moving towards the ball on that line. The responsibility to play without endangering another player applies, as does the liability for doing so.
.
“An ‘on target’ shot at the goal cannot be dangerous play.” This myth is (a very dangerous) invention. It seems to be based on (the unfortunate) fact that there is now no means of penalizing a shooter for reckless or dangerous play when a first shot at the goal at a penalty corner is propelled at an opponent at below knee height. Despite there being no height limit mentioned in Conduct of Play Rules, we have an exception to the possibility of ‘dangerously played ball’ just for the penalty corner shot – any defender struck with a shot which is below knee height must be, – penalised with another penalty corner, this is mandatory (so much for the subjective judgement of umpires). I consider this an aberration because a defender will be penalised even if obviously trying to play the ball with her/his stick, and irrespective of any recklessness or intimidation on the part of the shooter, this is contrary to other Rule.
. “Defenders have time to move out of the way of a ball that is propelled (raised) at them from more than 5m, so such a ball cannot be dangerous play.” An invention using inverted logic. 5m is the minimum distance within which a ball raised at an opponent above knee height will be considered dangerous, not a maximum distance, beyond which dangerous play is impossible. A ball propelled at another player could be considered dangerous play at any distance on the field of play, there is no upper limit.
.
“Defenders voluntarily play the ball with the body if they had time to move out of the way of a shot, don’t do so and are hit with the ball.“ There has to be clear intent to play the ball with the body. Voluntarily means willingly. A player is not willingly hit with the ball if s/he is trying to play it with the stick or is unsighted and unaware of the path of the ball or if attempting, but not succeeding, to take evasive action. To suggest that a player who could have moved out of the path of the ball (was physically able to do so) and therefore should have done so, has committed an offence if s/he doesn’t do so, is simply assuming intent whenever a player is hit with the ball. To suggest that there is a significant difference between intentionally and voluntarily in this context is ‘playing with semantics’ in an effort to make words mean what they are wanted to mean.
Another type of willingness to be hit with the ball might arise if a benefit was to be gained by being so hit but an umpire would have to be certain of the intent before penalising, there must be evidence not just an assumption.
‘Playing’ with semantics and ‘bending over back-wards’ to penalise a player hit with the ball just encourages reckless and dangerous play from any player propelling the ball towards/through opponents and achieves the opposite of the purpose of the Rule. Umpires should not be assisting either party to circumvent Rule or the intent of the Rule – even if that might make the game more interesting or spectacular; it is not the job of an umpire to provide entertainment.
.
“Whether or not a ball propelled at a player is a dangerously played ball depends on the level of play of the players, that is on the ability or skill of the players concerned.” This seems plausible until one considers what it is that makes any ball dangerous to any player (all players having approximately the same reactions times and all being of ‘flesh and bone’). It is the potential of the propelled ball to injure if the player is hit with it. That potential to injure and the degree of possible injury depend on the velocity of the ball and the height at which it is propelled. A player who is able to play a high ball that has been propelled at her/him has been as much endangered by that ball as a player who cannot. It is endangerment not actual injury that makes a ball dangerous. A ball that forces self-defence (rather than the taking of evasive action) to avoid injury, would be a better description of a dangerously played ball. The distance from the defending player the ball is propelled from is relevant only inasmuch as beyond a certain distanced, depending on ball velocity, it will be possible for the player to react to the ball (if s/he is aware of its path).
What goes to the root of the problem of the dealing with the ‘dangerously played ball’, is that it is a subjective judgement by the umpire. Objective criteria such as height and distance are used in only a very limited way, velocity is not mentioned at all. The plain fact is that a ball that is raised at high velocity at any player is potentially dangerous to that player, it forces her/him to respond to avoid injury, irrespective of his ability or skill to avoid or cope with the danger presented.
.
“An out-running defender at a penalty corner who runs towards the ball is a “suicide runner”, because s/he is“running down the barrel”, and should be penalised for dangerous play.”
Unless such a defending player clearly intends to use the body and not the stick to play the ball there is no offence. Terms such as ‘suicide runner’ should never have been used in this context. The first shot at goal during a penalty corner does not have to be raised or propelled from a set position, the scenario is presented is false. It is as if an out-runner were running into the path of a projectile, compulsorily fired, on a short fuse, from a static gun position – the truth is the shooter has choices and should not choose to endanger an opponent who is closing on the ball.
.
“A defender who closes on the ball when it is in the possession of an attacker who is taking a shot at the goal (or is about to) is guilty of dangerous play.”
Unless such a defending player is clearly intends to use the body and not the stick to play the ball, s/he has not committed an offence. A defender is entitled to defend and that includes closing on the ball and attempting to block the shot with the stick or tackle for the ball.
.
The relevant Rules.
9.8 Players must not play the ball dangerously or in a way which leads to dangerous play. A ball is considered dangerous when it causes legitimate evasive action by players.
9.9 Players must not intentionally raise the ball from a hit except for a shot at goal. Players are permitted to raise the ball with a flick or scoop provided it is not dangerous. A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous. If an opponent is clearly running into the shot or into the attacker without attempting to play the ball with their stick, they should be penalised for dangerous play.
9.11 Field players must not stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their body.
It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player. The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball or if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way.
13.3. l. For second and subsequent hits at the goal and for flicks, deflections and scoops, it is permitted to raise the ball to any height but this must not be dangerous. A defender who is clearly running into the shot or into the taker without attempting to play the ball with their stick must be penalised for dangerous play.
Otherwise,(that is if the defender is not attempting to play at the ball with their stick) if a defender is within five metres of the first shot at goal during the taking of a penalty corner and is struck by the ball below the knee, another penalty corner must be awarded or is struck on or above the knee in a normal stance, the shot is judged to be dangerous and a free hit must be awarded to the defending team.
The definition of a dangerously played ball is that it is “a ball that causes legitimate evasive action”. That statement alone should have been sufficient to prevent the creation of several myths, but it tells us only (and only in part) what a dangerously played ball is, not what other actions could constitute dangerous play, or even what ‘legitimate’ means (does it mean legal or genuine?) or what could possibly make any evasive action taken to avoid injury not legitimate.
These omissions have provided scope for ‘interpretation’ that have led to to various conclusions and this has been taken full advantage of. Why anyone would want to take such advantage to invert a previously accepted meaning of ‘dangerously played’ and even to remove the concept of the dangerously played ball from the game in certain circumstances, generally when what might be considered dangerous play is a shot at the goal, is outside the scope of this article.
The existence of the term ‘legitimate evasive action’ lends credence to the argument that evasive action can be legitimate in both meanings of the word i.e. necessary (or genuine) and also legal (or within the Rules).
Evasive action is not necessary, or indeed even a possibility, if a defending player is not positioned in the path of a ball that has been propelled by another player, such evasive action defines and is caused and is legitimized, by a dangerously played ball.
Being positioned in the defended goal or anywhere else (except the opponents’ goal) must be therefore be legal i.e. legitimate play, because otherwise no evasive action could ever be be legitimate and the term would not be used. Whether or not evasive action is legitimate i.e. necessary or genuine is a matter of umpire judgement, but it is also a player judgement, depending entirely on circumstances a player finds herself/ himself in. When the ball is raised high at a player at high velocity (and we here talking of a ball propelled at anything from 60 -100 mph), from within 14m, is difficult to see how an umpire could declare evasive action as unnecessary by any player at any level. (‘High’, in terms of height, could usefully be defined as an objective criteria).
It is not illegal for a defender to defend the goal either by staying in the goal on the goal-line or in front of the goal-line, nor is illegal for a defender to close down on an attacker about to shoot to try to intercept the ball with the stick or tackle for the ball with the stick, the goal could not be defended if a defender was not allowed to be in or to defend in the area between a shooter and the goal.
Legitimate evasive action is not in fact a sufficient description of a dangerously played ball when the ball is propelled at another player in a way that could endanger them, because evasive action is not always successful and because defenders may also be endangered when they have not taken or even attempted to take evasive action, either because they were physically unable to do so (lack of time to react) or because they were unaware that evasive action might be necessary. Either could be the case if a defending player was unsighted at the time the ball was propelled in their direction. It is also more than possible (very likely) that an umpire would not know if a defending player was unsighted when the ball was propelled in their direction.
I know it ‘sucks’ but the fact that it is against the Rules to propel the ball at another player in a way that endangers them, makes it much more difficult to score a goal than it would otherwise be. And playing the ball at or into the legs or feet of an opponent is not a legitimate way to ‘win’ a free or a penalty corner – in fact penalties against opponents are not (or should not be) ‘won’ (‘manufactured’) intentionally at all – passing and dribbling skills have to be developed and then used in a legitimate way.
.
Link to Index of Ruleshttp://wp.me/p3tNmd-3
I would like to make some observations about a Internet field hockey forum post :- (which is now pinned to the top of the Umpiring Section of that forum as an example of moderation in debate)
But first, here it is as written in full.
Dangerous shot on goal.
Every internet forum has had these debates, and the strong opinions have led to a deal of nastiness.
There are two extreme positions: – if it is a shot, it cannot be dangerous (any danger is the defender’s fault for being there); – the danger rules are being ignored, with too many dangerous shots allowed as goals, or injured defenders penalised with a PS.
On the occasions when the flame wars have subsidied enough to let reasonable contributors reach a consensus, that consensus has been:
- it all depends on the shot, the speed and distances involved, the skill-level of defenders and attacker, the state of play, the importance of the competition, and many other factors known only to those who were there… – at the highest levels of hockey, very little is judged as dangerous, on the assumption that defenders have the skill to take on almost any shot – … but umpires might still follow the guidance to Rules 9.9 and 13.3L, that a shot striking someone within 5 metres above the knee, can be considered dangerous – at beginning and social levels of hockey, inexperienced players must not be left feeling unsafe, and wild shots should be penalised to encourage attackers to care for safety – … so umpires can reasonably extend the ‘within 5′ to 7, 10, or even 14, and sometimes rule it ‘dangerous’ even if the ball misses everyone – at the majority of hockey in-between, it is back to the umpire’s judgement, based on experience, what they’ve read on the Internet, and discussions in the bar – … so after a game with such a decision, you’ll have this debate with a fellow umpire and a couple of other players .
******************************
I seems to be entirely reasonable doesn’t it? In fact it is a quite skilfully put together mix of truth, opinion, falsehood and contradiction, which ends with a picture of umpires and players happily chatting at the bar, an image that provides the necessary ‘feel good’ factor and general agreement of ‘everyone’ the author wants to impart.
A second look.
Every internet forum has had these debates, and the strong opinions have led to a deal of nastiness.
True, I have been on the receiving end of a great deal of this ‘nastiness’.
There are two extreme positions:
This is an extreme position.
- if it is a shot, it cannot be dangerous (any danger is the defender’s fault for being there);
An example from the 2010 WWC
The following statement is not an extreme position, it is the truth.
- the danger rules are being ignored, with too many dangerous shots allowed as goals, or injured defenders penalised with a PS.
Penalty stoke awarded
This one was ‘only’ a penalty corner. I have no idea what offence the defender was supposed to have committed.
The following sentence give the impression that reasonable contributors hold neither of the views given above – false – and that there is a consensus of opinion among reasonable people, (which by definition excludes those who hold the given ‘extreme’ views ) – this too is a false statement. On the occasions when the flame wars have subsided enough to let reasonable contributors reach a consensus, that consensus has been:
- it(whether or not a ball has been played dangerously) – all depends on the shot, the speed and distances involved, the skill-level of defenders and attacker, the state of play, the importance of the competition, and many other factors known only to those who were there… Nice mix, part true, part false, part irrelevant – and some parts missing. A closer examination:-
- it all depends on the shot, the speed and distances involved.That’s a promising start but it needed to be more precise. ‘It’ depends on the height of the shot, the speed (velocity) of it, the distance away from a player from which it was propelled, and, most importantly if it was at a player and forced self-defence.
-the skill-level of defenders and attacker, the state of play, the importance of the competition,All irrelevant as to whether or not a ball has been propelled in a dangerous way – has endangered a player.
- and many other factors known only to those who were there.
“the shot, the speed and distances involved” are also factors known only to those who ‘were there’. Other factors, such as obstruction, impeding, intimidation, sight-blocking, nature of stoke (forehand edge hit for example), can all be mentioned in written guidance for players and umpires, as acts that can lead to a dangerously played shot: it is not necessary to “be there” to know the kinds of actions that are prohibited and therefore should be watched for (umpire) or not intentionally carried out (players). For prevention prior knowledge of these things by players and coaches is essential – this is most consistently provided by written guidance in the issued rulebook , not after the event (of dangerous play) post-match in a bar, although such discussions can be helpful in individual cases.
- at the highest levels of hockey, very little is judged as dangerous, on the assumption that defenders have the skill to take on almost any shot. The near extreme view but only because it does not say “no shot” but “ very little” without explanation of the “very little” that is judged dangerous ( I think it is a shot that is going wide of the goal that may be judged dangerous – the same shot on target not so – a situation which I don’t understand and have been unable to obtain a logical explanation for), and the reason given is here different: no longer the outrageous “the defender’s fault for being there” which is usually offered(the defender cannot be called ‘at fault’ for attempting to defend and it is only possible to defend a shot at the goal from a position between the goal and the shooter), but the seemingly reasonable “on the assumption that defenders have the skill to take on almost any shot” ; the “almost” not expanded upon and what would be considered beyond the skill of players of the highest level not explained. Note that the attackers are not expected to have the skill to avoid propelling the ball high at a defender or to accept responsibility for doing so.
The absurdity of the assumption made about the skill of a defender can be demonstrated with an analogy:-
A motorist drives his car through a pedestrian-crossing while there is a pedestrian in his path and when prosecuted for dangerous driving defends doing so by claiming that the pedestrian, who was already on the crossing as he approached, should not have been there because he knew car drivers used the road. Not a defence. His next line is that the pedestrian knew that he was in a position where he could be hit by a car and also had or should have had the skill to jump out of the path of his car and avoid injury and was therefore responsible for his injury – caused it – : not a defence.
Here is an an example of what I consider to be the taking of legitimate evasive action at the highest level, the Gold Medal match of the Olympic Games. The umpire awarded a goal, I have no idea why; the shot was clearly made directly at the position of the ‘post player’ at about head height and endangered that player.
The prior positioning of a defender is reason not to propel the ball high (which needs defining) at that position i.e. at her/him but to take an alternative action. The positioning of a defender in front of the target goal does not indicate acceptance of an irresponsible – reckless – and/or dangerous action by an attacker, i.e. illegal actions. The defender accepts, as all players do, the possibility of injury because of accidental actions, miss-hits or deflections for example, but such accidental actions may still be penalised as dangerous.
The skill of the defender is irrelevant, what is relevant is the propensity of the ball to injure the player (any player) it is propelled at – which depends on the velocity, the height and also the distance from the player from which the ball is propelled – that in turn forces a player to self defence, either by trying to evade the ball to avoid injury or trying to play it with the stick, (success in either is irrelevant, the ball is still played at her/him in a dangerous way). The forcing of self-defence is critical in the judgement of a dangerously played ball – it actuall defines it – but it was omitted in the original post.
- … but umpires might still follow the guidance to Rules 9.9 and 13.3L, that a shot striking someone within 5 metres above the knee, can be considered dangerous
Guidance to Rule 9.9 reads “is considered dangerous” not “can be” (the FIH Rules Committee have declared such a stroke to be dangerous) and there is no height mentioned – so presumably a ball propelled at any height could be considered dangerous – it would certainly be incorrect to say that a ball propelled at a player below knee height cannot be dangerous. Nor is there any suggestion within the Rules that a player who is beyond 5m of the ball cannot be endangered by the way in which the ball is played. Guidance to 13.3.l, specific to the penalty corner, does not cancel out the guidance to Rule 9.9 – although the presence of both obviously causes some confusion.
Guidance Rule 9.9. A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous.
- at beginning and social levels of hockey, inexperienced players must not be left feeling unsafe, and wild shots should be penalised to encourage attackers to care for safety.True, the same can be said of all levels of hockey.
- … so umpires can reasonably extend the ‘within 5′ to 7, 10, or even 14, and sometimes rule it ‘dangerous’ even if the ball misses everyone.True, think, as an extreme example, of a shot taken on the volley at a falling ball near the edge of a crowded circle.
- at the majority of hockey in-between, it is back to the umpire’s judgement, based on experience, what they’ve read on the Internet, and discussions in the bar
- … so after a game with such a decision, you’ll have this debate with a fellow umpire and a couple of other players .
Note, no mention of the Rules of Hockey but in the absence of any guidance but that given to Rule 9.9., and with the definition of a dangerously played ball being “a ball that causes legitimate evasive action” , when umpires often interpret evasive action from players who are known to be skilled as an attempted ‘con’, the present rules relating to a dangerously played ball are hopelessly inadequate and players and coaches will seek explanation.
We are left with the subjective judgement of umpires, and that too is often hopelessly inadequate for the proper and fair protection of defending players facing an attacker in possession of the ball, especially when the umpire subscribes to the first of the “two extreme positions” – as many do.
Example: current FIH Umpires have stated on Internet hockey forums that defenders in front of the goal causes danger by their positioning, and position so with the intention of using their body to play the ball if they miss it with the stick. It is not known on what evidence or authority these assumptions are based. There is also absurdity in the claim: when there are two ‘post players’ positioned during a penalty corner are both of them causing danger at the same time, when they are more than 3m apart or is it only the one the ball is propelled at who is to blame?
Example of practice: The umpire in the following clip informs a defender in a match during the 2010 Women’s World Cup that an on-target shot at the goal could not be dangerous, and awarded a penalty corner against the defender (for being hit?) The shot, a raised edge hit from about 5m, struck the defender on the thigh.
Such umpires (and those who coach them) are dangerous to players because of these (extreme) views,they do nothing to discourage the dangerously played ball – in fact they encourage it. We can only speculate about what would have followed if during the penalty corner the umpire insisted on awarding, despite the ‘petulant’ protests of the Spanish players that the initial shot was dangerous, a defender had been injured, as Irewin of Cookstown was (fractured skull), in the EHL game shown above.
It is obvious that the dangerously played shot can no longer remain entirely a subjective decision – that is entirely the opinion of an umpire without reference to any objective criteria, if the ball is propelled at another player from more than 5m. - it all depends on the shot, the speed and distances involved and so it should but this statement is not acted upon, there is no means of making these judgements. It’s not difficult: when the ball is propelled high at a player we have one objective judgement “at a player”; added to that we could have a subjective judgement, but one to which the player defending can contribute, “at a velocity that could injure” – the defender then takes the decision to attempt to play or evade the ball. (Players are presently forced to attempt to play at the ball when a shot at the goal is made ‘through’ them, because evasion just leads to the award of a goal). Then we could have another objective judgement, height. I suggest “at above elbow height”; and finally, ‘distance’, another objective judgement.
Velocity and distance will together determine ‘time to react’ in a defensive way. Velocity and height will together determine the nature of the danger, the degree of injury that could be inflicted.
A high velocity ball propelled at a player at above elbow height would then be considered dangerous play – even if it was a shot at the goal from within the circle.
Within a day of my writing the above article someone on the hockey forum from which the original comment was taken, posted this:-
” There are already posts in other places discussing how this is completely untrue and unworkable and that the option they put forward is the only workable option.”
Which illustrates the problems we have with interpretation and opinion and bias. I have suggested an alternative approach: I did not say it was the only possible one or that the original post was completely untrue – but that it was false or mistaken in parts. I noted where it was true and where false.
It is this kind of biased, untruthful and irresponsible response (from an umpire who has previously declared he would award a penalty stroke against a player hit on the head while defending the goal on the goal-line) that leads to polarization of opinion instead of sensible debate and compromise – not that player safety should ever be compromised by the opinions of an umpire .
What criteria should be used to describe a dangerous shot is certainly open to further discussion: once it has been accepted that the present criteria – subjective judgement alone - is inadequate, which it obviously is if these decisions are prejudged i.e. are not in fact subjective at all, but predetermined irrespective of the facts in each case. Sensible discussion will however not take place.
The link below is to a typical example of an attempt (in 2010) to discuss dangerous play in connection shots raised at a penalty corner that hit a defender at head height. There are two examples given from the same tournament. It is clear from the replies given that a high shot going wide of the goal that hits a defender will be considered dangerous – but a shot that is on target will not be. No reasons for this difference of interpretation are offered, it just seems to be taken for granted. This suggests that umpires consider it an illegitimate action for a defender to defend the goal from in front of the goal or as they would put it “the defender accepts the risks”. But intentionally raising shot at – through – an opponent will endanger that opponent and is dangerous play, which is contrary to Rule, and so not an accepted risk. When the ball is intentionally raised at a player in a way that forces self-defence that player is entitled to expect the umpire to penalise the player who raises the ball at him.
Few Internet hockey forum threads have got much further than that one and there have probably been around fifty attempts since 2006 on that particular forum to explore the issue. Umpire coaches and senior umpires simply refuse either to engage at all or to give a reasonable answer to the questions raised. Those that do respond often do so just in order to prevent any discussion – as is the case in the example above. The respondent to the second incident mentioned in the thread was by the umpire involved (who also tried to ‘kill’ the topic with her first post). She acknowledges that she was wrong to award a penalty corner after a shot that was going wide of the goal hit a defender at head height, but there is no doubt at all that she would have awarded a penalty stroke if the shot had been ‘on target’ and the defender hit in the same way. Presumably the defender and not the attacker would have been seen in that case to have caused the dangerous play.
Following the death of Lizze Watkins, in Australia in May 2012, there was a call for provision for the wearing of helmets for field-hockey playing from a doctor in Perth, whose daughter plays hockey, reported in a newspaper article. The doctor said she saw and treated many hockey related head injuries from ball contacts. She also said she had written to the hockey authorities many time suggesting Rule change but was just ignored. An ill mannered reply was made to her reported comments from a hockey player. I am not in favour of the introduction of helmets for field players in hockey (I think they would lead to an even more cavalier attitude to dangerous play – as the introduction of face masks for penalty corners has) but I agree there needs to be rule change – so I replied to his comment pointing out the danger of the present interpretation in regard to the raised shot at goal, especially the drag-flick at a penalty corner. This is what he wrote in reply.
Martin Conlon penalty corners are another story all together I believe in the higher grades the posties should have to wear a mask and with saying that everyone that plays hockey know the risk and still choose to put themselves in the line of fire. Rules state everything goes in the D IF you are having a direct shot at goal if you choose to stand there knowing full well that’s the rule they are there at their own risk. It’s not a wimpy sport if you can’t deal with it don’t play it and stay at home and knit.
Rules state everything goes in the D. This guy does not know the Rules and should not be allowed to play until he has demonstrated that he does. The scary thing is I have in the past received similar comments on this subject from practicing umpires, and even those coaching novice umpires: dangerously clueless people who should not be entrusted with overseeing a hockey match.
The FIH Rules Advisory Panel for field hockey was formed in 1993 and mentioned in the Preface to Rules of Hockey 1998, as a body that would oversee Rules Trials.
The Future : Over the years, the Hockey Rules Board (HRB) explored changes to the Rules through the use of Experimental Rules. We have now reached the stage when it is considered appropriate to undertake a number of Trials of possible new Rules before they are formally introduced as Mandatory Experiments. Such an approach will enable a proper evaluation of some quite radical changes.The Trials, which National Associations will be invited to undertake, will be conducted by the Rules Advisory Panel (RAP).Full details of these ideas have been sent to National Associations. If will be their decision whether the Trials take place. The main areas for consideration include the penalty corner, larger goals, direct hits into the circle from free hits, ball not being stopped before a shot at goal during the penalty corner and having a broken line 5 metresoutside the circle. Opinions on these and related activities should be sent to Roger Webb, Co-ordinator of the Rules Advisory Panel.
Where the suggested rules for trial had come from and who besides Roger Webb was involved in the RAP remained unclear, but this umpire coaching document authored by John Gawley has been confirmed by Roger Webb to reflect the thinking of the RAP .
It is the most conflicted document written about the application of the rules of hockey that I have read. It also appears, in part, to form the basis of much of the current muddled ‘interpretation’ of defensive actions and the dangerously played ball. Some statements in it are the near or direct opposite of others so it reads like a list of alternative approaches rather than a coaching document or advice to umpires.
As far as I have been able I have highlighted like statements in one colour and grouped conflicting statements in another – one group has been generally ignored the other adopted. Which is seen as ‘positive’ for the game and which ‘negative’ will depend on the predisposition of the reader.
Some of the rules and guidance mentioned in the document have since been deleted, I have indicated this in green italic within the text on the first occasion only that each such rule or guidance is referred to. My comments have also been inserted in green italic.
The document has been very selectively used by umpire coaches. The reader will recognise the parts that are current application or ‘interpretation’. The result of this selection has been the development since of some very ‘slanted’ interpretation of player actions and of the written rules and guidance – which has in turn led, it appears, to the deletion of safety rules which were previously thought to be important.
*************
The Lifted Ball
2001
By John Gawley. Level 3 Umpire Coach.
No player should ever be put into a position of self-defence against a ball put into the air at any height, be it 15 or 50 centimetres. (now generally ignored when the defending player is more than 5m from the ball and always ignored when a shot at goal is made)
A player having to face a ball approaching in the air should have a clear view of the full flight of that ball and also have time either to move out of its way, or to play or attempt to play it in a legitimate and safe manner.(ignored)
So far as Goalkeepers are concerned, they deliberately put themselves “into the firing line” but are equipped to do so. Nevertheless, even they can be forced into self-protection rather than protection of their goal by dangerously-raised balls. (ignored)
INTENTIONAL LIFT
- Lift at an Opponent
If the ball is intentionally put into the air at an opponent at any height anywhere on the pitch in contravention of Rule 13.1.1 f: (Rules numbers changed in subsequent years, Conduct of Play became Rule 9)
(“Players shall not play the ball dangerously or in such a way as to be likely to lead to dangerous play”) and Rule 13.1.3b (“Players shall not intentionally raise the ball so that it lands directly in the circle” ( this Rule later deleted) the player who raises the ball is in breach of the Rule.
(There was also aRule 13.1.3dA player shall not raise the ball at another playerextant in 2001, which was deleted after 2003. Gawley, strangely, neglected to mention it here)
Furthermore, the shot may be dangerous or likely to lead to danger. Such a shot may legitimately be defended by the hand in accordance with Rule 13.1.2 a. (“Players shall not stop or catch the ball with the hand. There is nothing to prevent players using their hands to protect themselves from dangerously-raised balls.” (this guidance was later deleted)) That statement stands despite the fact that Rule 13.1.3 a (“Players shall not intentionally raise the ball from a hit except for a shot at goal”.) permits a shot at goal to be made at any height. A raised shot has to be made at goal, not deliberately at a defender standing either in goal or between the goal and the striker.
- Tackling Lift
There is nothing in the Rules to prevent any player in possession of the ball from lifting it over the stick of an opponent to resist a tackle, be it in the outfield, in the circle, or entering the circle, provided that the condition of Rule 13.1.3 b (“Players shall not intentionally raise the ball so that it lands directly in the circle.”) (replaced with a prohibition on intentionally raising the ball with a hit except when making a shot at the goal) is met. The last point is important: where the ball is lifted in such a manner over an opponent’s stick and enters the circle while still in the air, there is NO offence.
- Tactical Lift
When a ball is deliberately raised in a legitimate manner anywhere on the pitch the umpire should decide upon its merits as advised in the Rules Interpretations of the Rule Book. This form of play is used for tactical purposes, often to reverse the opposing defence. In general, it is fair to say that players who raise the ball in this manner, usually by scooping, consciously try to avoid danger to anyone in the flight path of the ball. The umpire is therefore seeking reasons why such a raised ball SHOULD be penalised. A player receiving a dropping ball should be given time and space in which safely to do so without real or threatened interference from an opponent. (Rule 13.1.3 c “Players shall not approach within 5 metres of a player receiving a falling aerial ball until it has been played and is on the ground.”) (this is very loosely applied, now opponents approach without penalty to within 5m of the receiving player as soon as the ball is played) Note that the ball, having been intentionally lifted in this way, may not fall into the circle.(no longer applicable, flicks and scoops may be played into the circle)
ACCIDENTAL LIFT
On the other hand, the ball is often raised accidentally, usually by a stick interfering with the flight of the ball, rather than by any deliberate attempt to play it.(????) In such circumstances, the ball is likely to fly upwards in an unpredictable trajectory, thus being both dangerous in itself and likely to cause danger. A ball hit some 15 cm in the air into a crowded circle is an example. The Umpire, therefore, is likely to be seeking reasons why this raised ball should NOT be penalised but should wait to determine whether this actual danger.. (? unfinished)
Interpretation
No matter where on the field the ball is raised, and no matter what the circumstances of the lift, the umpire must always judge whether a player has been genuinely endangered in any of the ways described. Umpires should be on their guard against players who simulate ducking out of the way of raised balls simply to try to “con” them into thinking that such a ball is dangerous. Similarly, umpires should not be misled by defenders, often in goal, who allow themselves to be hit by the ball so as to be able to claim that the shot was dangerous.(apparently now adopted as the standard thinking about ‘Legitimate evasive action)The same standards of judgement must be applied wherever and whenever the ball is raised. It is therefore important that umpires recognise, and agree before each game according to the level and playing conditions of that game, what is the likely distance inside which those particular players are likely to have to defend their own persons instead of playing the ball properly.(ignored if player more than 5m from ball) Other factors need to be considered for raised shots at goal, however.
RAISED SHOTS AT GOAL IN OPEN PLAY
The goal is there to be shot at. The goalkeeper is well-protected and has no grounds for protest about high shots at goal. So far as any other defenders are concerned, if they stand in the goal to defend high shots, they must accept the penalty if the ball hits them contrary to Rule 13.1.2 b (“Players shall not intentionally stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their bodies.”). They can be said, perhaps, to have arrogated to themselves the duty of goalkeeper without having goalkeeper’s privileges. High shots include hits, flicks and scoops.(note the assumption made that a defender who is hit with the ball had the intention to be so hit)Having said this, it must nevertheless be remembered that no player should ever be put to the necessity of self-defence, and that includes goalkeepers. Although properly protected, goalkeepers can still be injured by balls projected at them from so short a range and in such a manner that they are unable to adopt a naturally protective posture. In high level games, with physically fit, young, skilled players, it is possible that the minimum safe distance for a rising shot is about (than)? 3 metres. In less skilled games, that distance will probably be not less than 9 metres and could be more (reaction times have nothing to do with skill, Gawley confuses anticipation with reaction) . In all cases, the distances may increase dependent on other circumstances, not least whether the players defending the goal have a clear view of the whole flight of the ball from the moment that it is first propelled upwards. Judgement of what is dangerous must necessarily be subjective (That is not entirely true: height and distance are objective criteria which are actual and readily estimated by eye to a high degree of accuracy, and are thus suitable for the making of consistent decisions regarding a dangerously played ball . Subjective judgements are matters of opinion rather than of measurement e.g. “a ball velocity that could cause injury”, which is not a difficult subjective judgement or, where it is relevant, “intent” , which may be very difficult to discern. Fortunately intent where there is dangerous play is irrelevant ). Perhaps the soundest advice for the umpire is to consider that any raised ball is dangerous unless proved otherwise.In general, it is probably fair to say that a rising ball that would not be permitted on the grounds of safety in the outfield should not be permitted, for the same reasons, in the circle, whether for a shot at goal or, indeed, for clearing a shot at goal – a goalkeeper’s kick, for example. The exception is that the intentionally raised hit is permitted in the circle for a shot at goal; otherwise the same parameters apply. Note, however, that this advice is concerned mainly with high shots in OPEN PLAY. In these circumstances, there are usually few players in the circle and, as often as not, the shot is made in a one-on-one situation (this may have been true before the Off-side Rule was abolished but is no longer) . During Penalty Corners, where numbers of players are required by the Rules to operate within the circle, other considerations apply, all concerned primarily with Safety.
Summary
During open play, rising shots at goal are permitted provided the defending players have time to defend the goal rather than themselves. No player should EVER be permitted to raise the ball, anywhere on the pitch, that is dangerous to other players. If defenders other than goalkeepers dressed in protective clothing or helmeted “kicking backs” (who have goalkeepers’ privileges in the circle), elect to defend their goal, then a shot that would have been permitted against a fully-equipped goalkeeper should be permitted against them. And if they stop or play the ball with their bodies or sticks above their shoulders (above shoulder defending of a shot at the goal was not permitted in 2001), they should be penalisedunless they were endangered. ( it is difficult to see how a lifted shot of high velocity would not endanger the player it was lifted at- it would certainly force the defending player to either self-defence or evasive action - which defines a dangerously played ball)
RAISED SHOTS AT GOAL AT PENALTY CORNERS AND FROM CORNERS
- Players in the Circle
The Penalty Corner demands a maximum of 5 defenders behind their back or goal-line and places no limit on the number of attackers round the circle, though in practice the attackers usually number six or seven. There can thus be twelve or so players in the circle during the conduct of a Penalty Corner. For a Corner, and for other forms of Hit-in and Free Hit to the attackers where there has been a delay in play so as to allow players to gather in and near the circle, there is no limit to the numbers of players who may be in the circle. Eighteen players were counted on one occasion. Hits to the attack from the area of corner flags (corners, hits-in & free hits) are rightfully taken in open play, They are considered here with the Penalty Corner as likely to cause crowding within the circle. It can thus be seen that any ball raised into or within the circle in such circumstances has a great potential for danger. Such crowding underlines the need for umpires to judge whether players in the flight path of a raised ball have time properly to react to it. This is not to say that all raised balls in the circle are dangerous, nor that balls raised unintentionally into the circle are necessarily dangerous, but merely to indicate the potential for danger and hence the need for acute awareness and observation by the umpire.
- Penalty Corner
The defenders (including the Goalkeeper) are prohibited from deliberately raising the ball from a hit within the circle, or indeed outside it – Rule 13.1.3 a applies. The attackers, however, MAY deliberately raise the ball from a hit or other type of shot in the circle, but only for a shot at goal – not for a hit across the circle, for example. The one caveat to this permission is that the FIRST hit at goal at a Penalty Corner must comply with Rule 15.2 l (“If the first shot at goal is a hit, the ball must cross the goal-line at a height of not more than 460m (the height of the backboard) for a goal to be scored, unless it touches the stick or body of a defender.” (since amended)
Generally, the ball that is raised in the circle has a possible element of danger. But remember that any player may raise the ball over the stick of an opponent to resist a tackle. Once the first hit at goal in a Penalty Corner has been made, all subsequent hits may be at any height consonant with safety, as already described. However, still with the Penalty Corner, any other stroke to raise the ball may be made at any time, with no limit being placed on the height of the ball at any part of its flight. The only caveat on these forms of shot – usually scoops or flicks – is that of safety. And let us remember that the Penalty Corner Rule – specifically those sections applying to the first hit and the need first to stop the ball on the ground (no longer applicable) – ceases to apply if the ball goes beyond 5metres from the circle before re-entering it (Rule 15.2 (“If the ball travels more than 5metres from the circle, the penalty corner rules no longer apply”).
- The Scooped Ball
The ball that is flicked or scooped from near the inside edge of the circle so that it goes high over all heads and falls so that it will enter the goal just below the crossbar is not very likely to be dangerous when falling; the player(s) in the goal-mouth will see the ball raised, will see it during its flight, and will have time to decide how to defend the falling ball. They therefore have no excuse for playing the ball with their sticks whilst it is above their shoulders, for hitting the ball away in a dangerous manner, nor for using any part of their body to stop the ball. Only if the flick or scoop is at very short range, or if there are players in the line of sight between striker and goal, might the striker be penalised, and then usually only if the ball is still rising or if it is so low throughout its flight as to be obscured, for the receiver, by other players. Umpires should remember that the same conditions for dealing with a dropping ball apply for shots at goal as elsewhere on the pitch i.e. the player receiving the ball must be given time and space (5metres) in which to receive it safely.
- The Rising Shot
Having accepted the caveats noted above for the Penalty Corner, let us broaden thought to embrace the crowded circle. The same considerations previously mentioned still apply, i.e. the goal is there to be shot at, and defenders who arrogate to themselves the duty of goalkeeper must accept the penalty if they prevent a goal other than legitimately with their sticks.(note that the ‘perhaps’ before ‘arrogate’ has already disappeared from this (sic) new idea [of undetermined origin] – and, as above, positioning in the goal is seen, incorrectly, as an intention to use the body to play the ball) But, given the crowding already discussed, it is even more important that players defending any raised ball, regardless of its height, should have a clear view of the ball’s trajectory and have time either to remove themselves from its path or to play or try to play the ball legitimately. If they do not have such time, the ball raised at them must be considered dangerous and penalised immediately(ignored). But umpires should be on their guard against players who deliberately allow themselves to be hit by the ball so as to be able to claim that the lift was dangerous. It is the rising ball that is most likely to cause most danger, either because it can strike a player’s body, where its energy is likely to be absorbed, or because it can touch part of a stick and fly off unpredictably, with no loss of energy, to hit another player.
Summary
When the circle is crowded, such as at Penalty Corners and for hits from near the corner flag areas, there is a high potential for danger from any raised ball. Umpires must be alert to the risks involved but should not over-react merely because the ball is in the air or the body of a defender in the goal is struck by the ball. They should instead consider whether players have the necessary time and distance to avoid physical contact with the raised ball in favour of playing or attempting to play it legitimately, and not flinch from applying the appropriate penalty if avoiding action could have been taken. (There is some muddled thinking in that statement, as legitimate avoiding action – legitimate evasive action – defines a dangerously played ball ) The necessity for the first HIT at goal at a Penalty Corner not to cross the goal-line at a height greater than 460mm should also be borne in mind.
********************
The parts of the document highlighted in red are broadly the ‘current thinking’ and those highlighted in blue, even where they are part of the written rules and guidance issued by the HRB, are generally ignored. One of the most striking things about the document is, that having dismissed evasive action as an attempt ‘to con’ the umpire, there is no alternative way of determining if a ball has been played dangerously at another player offered. It’s “a subjective judgement” , but what criteria is that subjective judgement based upon in order that it may be applied consistently? The latest ‘thinking’ – that a shot on target cannot be dangerous - is a direct result of the adoption of parts of this document, but couldn’t be further away from the opening statements of it. This approach is however consistent, where no judgement relating to danger need be made – because an ‘on target’ shot cannot be dangerous – making inconsistent judgements about dangerous play is not a problem – very easy for the umpire. But is such an approach fair or in line with declared FIH policy on matters relating to player safety? I don’t think so. It may be said to be fair insofar as umpires apply it to both teams in the same way, but there is a profound unfairness evident between the approach to attackers and defenders, especially between shooter and defender in the circle.
In the same year this document was published the Rules Advisory Panel ceased to exist. Job done? It wouldn’t appear so, rules trials increased significantly after that date. Internal politics, ‘stepping on toes’ and ‘ruffled feathers’, seems a more likely reason – umpires had (openly) moved into laying down the rules – the prerogative of the Hockey Rules Board.
One of the priorities now for the HRB – in 2011 renamed the FIH Rules Committee - (if they are to retain any influence or credibility) must be to provide criteria for the recognition of the dangerously played ball: criteria that is fair, objective and can be applied consistently, without reliance on subjective judgement (the umpire’s opinion) alone. In the critical areas of the dangerously played shot at the goal and obstructive play i.e. ball shielding (both unique to hockey), umpires have demonstrated that consistency – and easy decision making – is achieved by ignoring these offences or pretending they do not exist; so umpires must confine themselves to applying the rules as given – not making or ‘reinterpreting’ them – their role in this area is to interpret the actions of players in relation to the written rules – not to ‘rewrite’ the rules (but without actually writing anything or referring to anything given by the FIH Rules Committee in the published Rules of Hockey).
********************************
The Rules of Hockey for 2013 -2015 have now been issued and include two Mandatory Experimental Rules, the Direct Lift of a free, which I have been advocating for years, and the Own Goal, which I think is a bad idea, especially as nothing further has been done to control the raised hit into the circle.
The opportunity to address deficiencies in the Rules concerning the dangerously played ball, in particular the introduction of objective criteria to define it, and the current ignoring of ball shielding as an offence has once again been allowed to slip by.
Among a number of other issues the penalty corner remains unchanged, the ban on the playing of a free ball, awarded in the opponent’s 23m area, into the circle remains, as does the mess of 5m restrictions cluttering the Self-Pass. Nothing has been done to free up the receiving of an aerial ball at above shoulder height by a player in free-space.
The Direct Lift is the one improvement, but without prohibiting the lifting of a free, awarded outside the opponents 23m area, into the circle – and so the development of set-pieces based on that – this improvement is likely to lead to more dangerous situations in the circles.
.
Edit 21 July 2012. Field Hockey. The suggested direct-lift has been adopted into the Rules of Hockey for 2013-15.
Edit 3rd April 2013. Thus far the facility to raise the ball directly from a free has not caused any ‘ripples’. The self-pass still seems to dominate restarts after a free ball has been awarded, whereas before the introduction of the self-pass the ‘touch and scoop’ was frequently used. Danger arising from facility to lift a free ball directly into the circle has not materialized, as I thought it might, mainly I think because the circle is seldom clear of opponents and the opportunity for a pass directly to an attacker (that will not be penalised as dangerous play) seldom occurs after a free ball is awarded. I wonder what might have happened if the direct-lift had been introduced first or the two measures had been introduced at the same time – which is what I had originally hoped for.
****************
Some years ago I suggested that a team awarded a free anywhere on the pitch should be afforded the facility to lift it directly with any stroke except a hit. There were two reasons for the suggestion. Firstly, it complemented the self-pass, which was suggested at the same time, because it would then be of little advantage to defenders to put a ‘wall’ around the position of a free awarded against them, to block in a self-passer. Secondly, it provided a safe alternative for the scoop combined with the (ignored) ’1m rule’ (and the need for attackers who want to lift the ball to have two players adjacent to it) – which was often followed by a defender trying to charge the ball down – more to distract the lifter into ‘fluffing’ the lift, or being inaccurate with it, than with any real hope of interception (in fact probably with the hope that the charging defender would not be hit with the ball but the scoop would be penalised as dangerous).
A suggested restriction was that a ‘lifted free’ could not be lifted directly into the shooting circle.
There were some ‘whispers’ that the direct lift would be introduced in 2006, but that did not happen. I think it is still the preferable alternative to the present ‘touch and scoop’ between the 23′s and would also resolve some of the problems the self-pass has thrown up.
Defenders do not want to retreat far from a player who they think will self-pass, but they will certainly move to guard their ‘back-yard’ if the ball can easily be lifted directly over any ‘wall’. That in turn should make openings for the shorter ground passes and for the self-pass.
Obviously the suggestion is aimed more at play between the 23′s but there is no reason the ball could not be scooped wide of the circle, or even over the circle from one side of the pitch to the other, from within the 23 areas.
The ‘Direct Lift’ or ‘Lifted Free’ solves the problem of the attackers ‘wasting’ two players in the taking of a free-ball – just as the self-pass means they no longer need to ‘waste’ even the taker of the free. It solves the passing of the ball 1m before a scoop can be made (which was ‘solved’ previously by ignoring the 1m requirement) and it solves the problem of the defender charging down an intended scoop as soon as the free is played – which in turn allows the taker to scoop the ball with greater consideration, over a greater distance and with greater accuracy – its safer.
The debates that have taken place on Internet hockey forums about a self-passer scooping the ball with a second touch, and the debate on lifting the ball over the circle, while the possibility of the Direct Lift is ignored, seem ludicrous to me.
Since writing the above passage I have come across this from the 1976 Rules of Hockey:-
14. FREE HIT.
For Women Only.
b) The ball shall be stationary. Any legitimate stroke may
be used except that any ball propelled into the circle
shall not rise above knee height.
For Men Only.
d) The ball shall be stationary and the striker shall hit the
ball or PUSH IT ALONG THE GROUND. A flick or
scoop shot shall not be permitted.
So my suggestion is not entirely new. The women were, (before the joining of the two Associations and the subsequent issue of a uniform set of rules), allowed to lift the ball from a ‘free’ even with a hit. The men were specifically forbidden from raising the ball with any stroke (men being considered more dangerous and irresponsible I suppose).
Prohibiting the direct lifting of a free-ball with a hit, but allowing it with a flick, lob, scoop, is a different approach and one that I believe would improve the game.
.
