Field Hockey Rules: Free Ball – Suggestions.

Field Hockey Rules. Free Hit

(which should be termed Free Ball of Free Pass or Free Start to avoid the contradiction ” A Free Hit may be lifted directly with any stroke except a hit”)

Unraveling the tangle that has been made of the Free ball since the introduction of the Self-pass. 

.

Suggestions

 

1. Delete the present Rule 9.9 Intentionally lifted hit. (It is ignored anyway UMB advice is forget lifted-think danger)

(transfer references to dangerous flicks and scoops to Rule 9.8 – Dangerous playing of the ball – where they belong).

(the ‘spare’ rule number 9.9. might then be used for a separate Rule concerning the aerial pass and the receiving of an aerial ball. A ‘falling ball’, an aerial shot – perhaps the first mention of the drag-flick -, encroaching, bouncing the ball on the stick, permitted lifting the ball with a hit  etc.etc.)

 

2. Delete the prohibition on playing the ball directly into the circle from a free ball awarded in the opponent’s 23m area. (Rule 13.2 f)

.

 

3. Delete the requirement that the ball must be moved 5m before it is played into the circle when there is a free ball  awarded in the opponent’s 23m area.  (Rule 13.2 f.)

.

The invention (it’s not  in the Rules of Hockey – so not Rule)  that a player taking a self-pass before opponents have been given opportunity to retreat 5m,  be allowed to run or move the ball 5m without interference or influence from opponents – which is extraordinarily difficult to umpire correctly – can then be quietly forgotten.

.

4. Replace the above 1 -3 with a ban on :-

a) in any phase of play, open or penalty – any raising of the ball directly into the opponent’s circle with a hit

(meaning a hit that transfers or is intended to transfer possession of the ball away from the hitter – not the clipping of the ball to raise it over an opponents stick while dribbling and the intention is to retain possession of the ball – knee height limit) 

.

b) the lifting of the ball into the circle to above knee height with a deflection or directly with any other stroke.

.

c) any raising of the ball directly into the circle from a Free Ball.  

(Scoops that land outside the circle to be permitted to bounce into circle – subject only to danger and to the encroaching Rule). 

.

5.  The requirement (13.2.c)  that a same team player be 5m from a free awarded in the opponent’s 23m area should be deleted.

.

6. An offence in the hash area that results in the award of a free to the attack should be taken from the place of the offence, but played out beyond the hash line before it may be played into the circle. (Revision of 13. 1 b.)

.

That lot sorted out:-

.

 

7. Then if a Free-ball is played by the taker as a Self-pass before opponents have had opportunity to retreat 5m, that is treated as an advantage played and normal play resumes immediately the ball is moved. Opponents who do not immediately retreat on the whistle for an offence (intentionally cause delay to the restart whistle – see point 8) may receive personal penalty and where appropriate, a penalty corner may be awarded (this encourages rapid compliance of the Free ball 5m requirement by the side the penalty is awarded against).

.

 

8. Institute a double-whistle system. First whistle stops play when there is an offence which is penalised. Second whistle signals resumption, the second whistle to be blown immediately the ball is stationary and within playing distance of the offence (no more than 2m).

(this encourages rapid compliance of free ball requirements by the side awarded the penalty and also helps to prevent control of the game ‘running away’ from the umpire, because free balls are then no longer taken without attempting to make the ball stationary or position it within playing distance of the offence – the game cannot resume without the second whistle).

.

 

As now, play on is the preferred option whenever possible – a delayed card is probably a better deterrent than the award of an immediate Free ball when a player commits an offence within the defended 23m area, especially within the hash area, that does not warrant the award of a penalty corner.

. 

The current Rule (in blue) with the advice (in red)  from the UMB tagged onto it  (which is not part of the official Rule or Rule Guidance).  The advice from the UMB should be deleted, where other deletion or amendment is suggested (as above) that is indicated in black bold .

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 (and additional words from UMB not in the rule book): this same player can play, attempt to play the ball or try to influence play, once the ball has travelled 5 metres.

.

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

.

d.     the ball is moved using a hit, push, flick or scoop

.

e.      the ball may be raised immediately using a push, flick or scoop but must not be raised intentionally using a hit

.

f.      from a free hit awarded to the attack within the 23 metres area, the ball must not be played into the circle until it has travelled at least 5 metres or has been touched by a player of either team other than the player taking the free hit.

.

If the player taking the free hit continues to play the ball (ie no other player has yet played it) :

– that player may play the ball any number of times,   but  (a better description of the taker of a free ball playing the ball and immediately resuming open play while retaining possession of the ball is needed)

– the ball must travel at least 5 metres, before

– that player plays the ball into the circle by hitting or pushing the ball again.

Alternatively :

– another player of either team who can legitimately play the ball must deflect, hit or push the ball before it enters the circle, or

– after this player has touched the ball, it can be played into the circle by any other player including the player who took the free hit.

.

It is permitted to play the ball high above the attacking circle so that it lands outside the circle subject to Rules related to dangerous play and that the ball is not legitimately playable inside or above the circle by another player during its flight.

.

There is a strong objection to the altering of the text of the published Rules of Hockey - even if alteration is only by adding of phrases or clauses to existing Rule to make it ‘fit’ with other alterations to the Rules.

.

The published Rules of Hockey are drafted by a sole appointed authority, the FIH Rules Committee, (who while drafting Rule consult, over a long period,  with many different parties including the FIH Umpiring Committee ).  All draft Rule is then offered to the FIH Executive for formal approval.  If the Executive do not approve any aspect the draft is sent back for revision (even the Executive cannot just amend the wording of a draft) and is then resubmitted .. . and so on.  Just adding an additional clause to the Rules of Hockey in the UMB (a FIH Umpiring Committee publication) flouts that laid down procedure and is therefore unconstitutional: such changes have no validity.  If it were possible for a UMB to legitimately change the wording of Rule or Rule Guidance there would be no point in having an FIH Rules Committee or an established procedure under which that committee operated. Information about these procedures is set out on the FIH wed-site in FAQ and in various pdf documents which may be read and/or downloaded.  

.

Actually adding text in the UMB is not the worst that can (and does) happen. Advice like the following can occasionally be found in local Umpire Association Handbooks :-

“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.”  That advice – a true example –  is a direct contradiction of the Rule Guidance. But at least most of the individuals who write such things don’t often pretend to be ‘authority’ and can be identified and corrected – however much of this sort of ‘coaching’ is verbal and may even be denied to be occurring.

.

Worse than aberrations by individual umpire coaches, are proclamations by TDs, UMs or Umpire Coaches that video showing the interpretation of particular incidents in action, such as those produced with the sanction of the FIH Umping Committee on the Dartfish website, are definitive – more definitive than the written Rules of Hockey (because it is  -some have said –  often difficult or impossible to put things into words). A look at the given  Interpretation of the Action  provided with some of these videos –  see the article Willful Blindness  http://wp.me/pKOEk-Og   – together with a viewing of what is being described and a reading of an alternative written interpretation, should be sufficient to convince most people that the written descriptions (interpretations) offered on the website do not always match what is being shown, and also that words are essential to  Rules and  Rule Guidance:  in fact I would suggest that if something cannot be put into words it cannot be put into Rule.  Video is only a means of showing example of what it is that is being described in writing.  Not all will see and interpret the same incident in the same way by visual information alone (which is why, while umpiring, different umpires may interpret player actions in entirely different ways – the differences between individuals often depending on their knowledge of hockey and of the abilities and likely intentions of hockey players)

.

I feel, however,  that the most pernicious alterations are those that are ‘cascaded’ from an indeterminate  source (they may even only become public knowledge via television commentators  who have been hurriedly updated on ‘current practice’ ). The notions, that an ‘on-target’ shot at the goal cannot be considered dangerous play, and that shielding the ball to prevent a tackle is no longer an offence, fall into this category.   These notions are held to – “because ‘everybody’ does it that way” and “it’s expected” despite, with ball-shielding,  clear written evidence to the contrary –  Rule 9.12.  and when  ’dangerous’ is supposed to be a subjective judgement based on legitimate evasive action. Declaring any ‘on-target’ shot cannot be dangerous, is not a subjective judgement – it’s objective – what is being judged is whether or not a shot is on target (only if a shot is wide of target is ‘danger’ considered at all – which isn’t even rational).

.

The most difficult inventions to dislodge may however be those that are presented in writing by Umpiring Associations as Rule Guidance “from the FIH”  because they are in the UMB.  between  Rule from the FIH Rules Committee and advice given in a UMB.  It is not easy to get the people at or near the top, in any organization, including the FIH,  to observe their own procedural rules if they do not feel like doing so.

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

.

Field Hockey Rules: Conflicting interpretation

Legitimate.

1. Conforming to laws or rules or to accepted or established  principles or standards.
2. Valid – able to be defended with logic or justification as necessary.
3. Genuine

Legitimate evasive action.

An action taken to evade the ball which is necessary to avoid the possibility of being injured by it.

A dangerously played ball is a ball propelled by one player in a way that gives cause for legitimate evasive action by another player. As always it is necessary to give the relevant Rule.

.

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.

.

The above Rules are all that are given in the Rules of Hockey concerning the dangerous playing of the ball in open play.

The Penalty Corner Rules 13.3. further limit A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous by declaring that any stroke that raises the ball and strikes an opponent who is within 5m, on or above the knee is to be penalised as dangerous play.

And, in addition to the height restriction of 460mm on a first hit shot at the goal

 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.

Interpretation.

The syntax is poor but above Rule Guidance 13.3.l. obviously must, as it clearly states, relate to second and subsequent hits at the goal (the first being specifically restricted), and to all flicks, deflections and scoops be they first shots at the goal or subsequent shots at the goal. To permit a first flick shot to be exempt from the Rule governing dangerous play, but to apply the Rule to any subsequent flick-shot would not be logical, especially when the first hit-shot at the goal is severely height restricted and the different styles of shot travel at similar velocity

In any phase of play, open or penalty, any ball that is raised at a player, may be judged by the umpire to have caused legitimate evasive action and therefore to be dangerous play. Raised to what height? The Umpire Manager’s Briefing for Umpires declares: Low balls over defenders sticks in a controlled manner that hit half shin-pad are not dangerous.  It follows that any ball raised at a player (especially with a wild or uncontrolled stroke) to above half shin-pad height (approximately 30cms?) may, in any umpire’s judgement, be considered in a particular circumstance, for example,  from close range, to have been dangerous play.

A ball raised at a player at any height above knee height may be considered by an umpire to have been dangerously propelled – to have caused legitimate evasive action -even at 10m or 15m from the player endangered, in fact at any distance; there is no limiting distance given in the Rules of Hockey. This makes sense when it is realized that a ball with a velocity of 100 kph (not an unusual speed for a drag flick at the goal or a ball ‘accidentally’ hit across the goal in the circle) will travel approximately 27.78 meters in one second, and players are generally unable to respond effectively to the path of such a ball – once it has been located and is being tracked – in less than 0.5 secs. i.e. players may be unable to defend themselves.

So much for the Rules of Hockey, now to turn to ‘practice’.

This post was the opener for a thread on a hockey related website about the ‘gap’ between the written Rules, the Rule Guidance embedded in them, and Rule application.

UmpireHockey.com. The photos below from the USA v Belgium 11~12 consolation game in which #20 USA scores a goal, putting the ball past the shoulder of a Belgium player #5.

(Rule 9.8 and Rule 9.9 and the embedded Guidance with each – which I have posted above – were then set out).

I’ve always taken that to mean that if the ball is flicked, scooped, OR HIT towards an opponent within 5m it is considered dangerous.

Of course, I’ve also always considered that a player can’t always protect themselves from danger with legitimate evasive action—and that that is part of my job. In fact, I’ve always thought that legitimate evasive action was there so we wouldn’t turn into soccer/football having people trying to win Golden Globes and Academy Awards by faking that they were endangered.

And, finally, I’m predicting that we’ll have some (like this particular umpire has done) say that all things go with shots on goal. To which I say, we agree therefore that there is gap between what’s in the rule book, including the embedded guidance, and the briefing and what we understand to be the current practice. And, of course, what would the call have been if this had happened at the midfield line, consistency anyone?

Aren’t these gaps worth closing?

(I have replaced the photo stills with video – which was available on-line at the time of these posts, so available to be seen by the contributors, but could not be downloaded to the web-site at that time. The video also contains another goalmouth incident and decision by the same umpire, which is interesting in the context of the discussion)

http://s381.photobucket.com/user/Conundrum_2008/media/Conflictingdecisions_zpsca156fdd.mp4.html

The subsequent argument carried on over seven pages of posts. I have selected just two of the contributors, Nij and Keely, both of a view opposite to my own. I believe these two say in their posts (despite the evasions, gobbledygook and contradictions, which make it difficult to know just what it is they are suggesting is Rule) all that needs to be said to justify the abandonment of the subjective judgement of legitimate evasive action as a criteria for a dangerously played ball and the institution of objective criterion in its place.

Nij.

Deegum said: There has never, to my know/edge been anything in the rules to suggest that outfield players defending the goal are endangering themselves{unless they move Into the path of a shot

Except for the large number of times, surely, that others have told you why this is.

A person who chooses to stand in a place where they know the ball can be lifted into, without making any attempt to prevent themselves being hit, is placing themselves in danger. And to that, I would also add: what moron defender is trying to stop the shot directly? This is the goalkeeper’s job; the defender should be stopping the shot from being able to happen in the first place, not hoping to get a FHD from someone who doesn’t umpire the same way as 99% of all others (including at the highest levels).

Nij.

Deegum said: umpires adhering to ‘current practice’ in this area, may find themselves having failed in their duty of care to protect players from unnecessary and avoidable danger

[mod edit: unnecessary expletive deleted] ‘

The player who chooses to stand on that line, knowing the ball can and will be raised occasionally, is doing everything possible to create danger short of actively raising the ball at players themselves. No umpire regardless of their level, can prevent a player from being stupid before they act stupidly if the stupid player in question has made up their minds to do so already.

Neither I nor any other umpire who follows the current and F1H preferred interpretation can be blamed for what happens. You’re right that the danger is unnecessary and avoidable: you are entirely wrong on who is most responsible for allowing it to happen, and on who is most able to prevent it.

You say that attackers should learn to shoot at spaces or gaps. 1 say that defenders should learn how to bloody defend: you are there to tackle or intercept. Let your goalkeeper do their damn job and stop the shots, that’s why they are wearing pads, not you.

“but, Judge, It is current practice to allow this” would not, I’d guess, carry much weight in a US injury damages case .

A person who chooses to play a sport, e.g. field hockey knowing that there is a risk of injury does so of their own accord. Those who officiate the match cannot be blamed for it happening, when they have done what is reasonable, when the player has done something unreasonable.

Diligent likes this.

 Nij

Kilmory said: But is this ignoring the fact that the lilted shot, flick or scoop towards goal is allowed – unless it is dangerous?                                                                                                                              I would counter that the defender, standing in a set position, can reasonably expect the ball to be played to miss them. if they believed the rules as written they would know that the ball cannot be raised into them.

The ball is being raised into the goal. A defender should be quite able to stand outside the line of the goal, and use their stick to play at the ball

And finally,the person most able to prevent the danger is the person who has control of the ball.

Except they are not the only person able to prevent the danger.

If the defender tries to play an aerial past an attacker from a FHD, with the attacker jumping into the shot instead of standing low and using their stick to block it, then who has made it dangerous? The player raising the ball has every right to do so, where their opponent could have easily prevented any danger from occurring and played the ball.

The same applies to the shot at goal. The defender could have stood outside the line of the goal, and used their stick (at any height, I also note) to stop or deflect the ball. More, they could have instead allowed the goalkeeper to stand inside the line of the goal, and gone to make a tackle or intercept that prevents the attacker being able to shoot in the first place.

Basically, It comes down to what you believe the phrase ‘position themselves with the intention’ means. I would say it means moves into the path of a ball which has already been struck, YOU obviously feel It means standing still in a legitimate part of the pitch.

Position themselves with the intention of standing where they know the ball can and will be raised, whilst having other options (options which should make far more sense for any player who wants to both not get hurt and help defend the goal).

Knowing that they have a goalkeeper who can stand there and who has practised stopping shots; who is wearing a large amount of padding; which the defender themselves is certainly not. Knowing they could simply take a step or two to the left and still be able to play the ball (or, and is this such a contentious idea? Go and tackle the shooter, or stop them from shooting in the first place). Knowing that the ball can, and often will be raised into the goal.

They know all of that, and they have chosen to stand in the line of the goal. They have done everything they possibly could to make it dangerous to themselves, and neither I nor the majority of umpires will penalise the attacker for it.

I have heard it used even if the rule contradicts it (e.g. defender hit above knee from a PC inside 5m).

If a rule is being directly contradicted, by saying that a player within 5 metres hit above the knee by a (drag) flick at a PC and being told it’s a shot at goal so not dangerous, then that’s not an issue of the current practise being wrong by the rules, it’s a case of an umpire applying the wrong rules to a situation and making the wrong call.

Nij

Justin said: I hope that no-one is suggesting that, because no one was injured on the goal-line (in the the Ogs), that therefore there were no dangerous shots .

The definition says that if LEA is taken, then it’s dangerous …….and I’m sure we all saw players taking LEA on the goal-lines (I certainly did)

I would say that In fact. It’s not legitimate evasive action: to move yourself into the shot first, and then out of it again when you decide that “actually, I’d rather not be hit today..”. It might be dangerous in the non-rule-definition sense, but that’s caused by the defender standing somewhere silly, as carefully explained above.

Keely

UmpireHockey said: Hmm. I think we could charge the Olympian to be skilful enough to place the ball into a position that no one would consider dangerous. If she’s all that good to narrowly miss a player’s upper body/head, she should be just as skillful to play the ball down below the defender’s knees where there was even more open space into the goal. This shot caused the defender, who is allowed to take up any position on the field, to take legitimate evasive action from a shot that was taken from less than 2 meters away—let alone being less that 5 meters. I believe that’s how danger is defined in the book, right? So, why would the current practice differ? Why would there be a gap?

You want a shot that “no one would consider dangerous”? I’m telling you that no one at that level considers that example dangerous. The attacker has a GK on the ground who can possibly block a low shot, and a second defender reaching her stick out to block – that’s right – the low shot. In order to score, she must raise the ball high into a net that stands at 2.14m. She has only a narrow gap between the space taken by the defending player who cannot by the rules of the game use her body to stop the ball and the side post, and she aims for that gap- The defender may or may not have taken evasive action, but the key word is ‘legitimate’ – and at that level, it is not legitimate to stand blocking the net with one’s body and then duck and claim danger when the ball is put past you.

So that’s the big secret, 1 guess: the word legitimate.

It would not be legitimate to stack five field players across the goal, standing on the goal line, and then claim that any shot that is raised over knee height or hit at high velocity lower than that in an effort to score is dangerous. This would be the natural result of any objective codification of danger in the way that you are lobbying for.

Again, the gap is not within the rules, which are written with subjectivity in mind so that every level of the game can be umpired property and consistency within that level, but in what you believe should be called and what was actually called.

Justin said: It would be interesting to hear, from an international umpire, some examples of what the elite corps DOES regard as ‘dangerous play’, and preferably a definition

Just to say It Is a subjective judgement means that every umpire will have his/her own personal criteria regarding what they will or will not penalise. It also means that I’d be just as correct in blowing FHD for a player hit on the head, as someone else who’d give a PS …both subjectively deciding that it was or was not dangerous. Of course, the UM (with his own criteria) might not agree! Not an ideal recipe for consistency…we must surely be able to do better than that?

You’ve been far less than interested in hearing from me, Justin, and the example I already gave above so I guess you mean other international umpires (maybe males?). If I presented you with a definition, you’d say it’s not in the rule book so it can’t possibly be binding on anyone else.

Strangely enough, it seems that at the highest levels we still are very consistent, regardless of how little you think of the recipe.

UmpireHockey.com said: We say, “We’re a litigious society.” We are held to a higher standard, and we–in turn – have a higher expectation of items like written documents. The written documents in hockey are the rule book and the briefing, The FIRST place the lawyers are going to look is in the rule book. To defend yourself if the book won’t, we’d get to use the briefing, we would NOT get to use the ‘current practice’ . Uh, I mean we would use it but then …the laughing would begin.

I would encourage you and any other contributor who is NOT a lawyer to hesitate in expressing opinions on the pertinent legal principles and how potential litigation may or may not proceed.

Nij

deegum said:  Nij“when the player has done something unreasonable”

Such as standing in the most advantageous place to intercept the ball – in a manner that has been accepted for what ? 70 years? Without any relevant change of rule, it becomes an intent to commit an offence?

The goal-line is definitely not the most advantageous place to intercept the ball.

Unless you’re better at stopping a 100+ kmh shot which could be anywhere in a 7 square metre area using an object with perhaps one one-hundred-fiftieth that size, than placing your stick in front of a

stationary/slow-moving ball which is in a very specific place in such a way that has a much better chance of stopping the ball than not stopping it, then saying that the goalmouth is the best place to stop the shot from, is just plain absurd.

EDIT: ask any goalkeeper who knows what they’re doing, even, when somebody is going to get a free chance to shoot, unmarked coming into the circle, what’s the first thing you do? Cut down the angle.

You don’t stand back and let them bash it towards the goal, then hope you can react fast enough. You get your body and pads out in front of the ball and stop the shot from getting anywhere near the goal in the first place.

If the plan of somebody who can use anything they like, with much more protection and much greater blocking area, is to get right up in front of the shot, then why in any blazing hell would a defender think they’ve got a better chance of stopping it from on the line!?

Nij

UmpireHockey.com said: If a player on the goat-fine is in an illegitimate position then when they make an amazing stick save of a shot that would otherwise cross the goal-line, one could argue for the award of a penalty stroke because the player has illegally stopped the ball from crossing the goal-line.

I don’t know that I’ve seen such a well-crafted strawperson before. I’m sure that Burning Man Project might be interested in your technique.

It’s not an offence to stand on the line and play the ball legally. It is an offence to stand on the line and play the ball illegally.

Is this such a complicated thing to understand, without trying to make it sound anything like it isn’t?

Keely

Justin said: (following an analogy from base-ball posted by Keely)  OK, but what happens when the pitcher lets off a wild one (accidentally or not) which hits the batter, standing Quite legally where he should be?

Then the batter gets a free pass to first base (automatic walk) as a penalty. If he does it in a manner the umpire deems intentional, the pitcher gets thrown out of the game.

Justin said; I s’pose you’d say that would be like a DFer hitting a player standing OUTside the post? And, if the batter stood ON the plate he’d be ‘fair game’? although of course he wouldn’t…apart from the risk, he couldn’t hit a fair pitch from there-!

Exactly. Because unless you have privileges granted by the rules that allow you to use your body to block the ball and the necessary equipment to protect yourself against injury from fulfilling that designated role in the game, you shouldn’t be there. If you make that choice, it’s your risk. If you’re successful in legally saving the ball, great. But you also bear the flip side.

Justin said: But it seems crazy/illogical that just outside the post it’s regarded as dangerous, but just inside it’s allegedly legal to hit a defender!

Crazy or illogical to you and a tiny minority over-represented in FHF discussions, but completely expected and logical to me and the immense majority of hockey and sporting people. And this here is the real crux of the argument.

Nij

Deegum said: Could you tell me how a defender could reliably demonstrate their intention NOT to use their body as a back up- for I can assure you that many defenders do not so intend?

By not placing their body in the line of any shot which is going into the goal. This has been said so many times now, I do begin to think you’re deliberately ignoring the responses given to you and the explanations thereof.

Deegum said: Seems pretty stupid to me to use the body under the present ‘interpretation’ when a PS, i.e. a near certain goal, and a possibly injured star player, result.

Seems pretty stupid to me too, which is why I’ve described such players often as complete morons, but hey: that’s what they’re doing. They know what will happen as a result of their actions, and they do it anyway. Pretending otherwise would be just be silly. Unless you want to portray this as some kind of horrible monster attacker raising the ball at the innocent heroic defender story, of course, which would be naive at best.

They want the benefit of being able to stand there when they succeed in saving a goal with their stick, they’ll get the penalty applied for failing by preventing a goal with their body. They know this. The umpires know it. Everybody is on the same page in this situation, except for those lone stalwart Guardians Of The Old Way Of Doing Things.

Deegum said: So the meaning of English has changed?

Yes, it being a live language, which has words added or altered every single day as their common interpretation becomes different according to the way it is used and understood. Unlike for example Latin, which is unchanging and thus considered dead, in linguistic terminology.

Nij

Deegum said: Could you tell me how a defender could reliably demonstrate their intention NOT to use their body as a back up.

Funny, I could have sworn someone answered this.

By not placing their body in the line of any shot which is going into the goal.

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

So there we are, two umpires who are convinced that a defender has no business defending the goal on a line between a shooter and the goal, and if a defender does so position they do so with the intention of using the body to play the ball and should be penalised if hit with the ball,  irrespective of any evasive action, attempt to play the ball with their stick or any action of the shooter.  Moreover this is the view of anyone who is not a stupid moron and of the immense majority of hockey and sporting people – opinion but no reason offered, no definitions and nothing from the Rules of Hockey or (clutching at straws) even the Umpire Manager’s Briefing for Umpires.

.

Going back to the video.  http://s381.photobucket.com/user/Conundrum_2008/media/Conflictingdecisions_zpsca156fdd.mp4.html

.

It is clear that the ball is not hit at the defender but it is hit up and across her and the lean back she makes to ensure the ball does not hit her is I think justified. The shot is certainly intimidating (an offence) and wild/reckless (an offence) as it could just as easily have been hit into the goal at the near post and along the ground. It is certainly the sort of play that ought to be discouraged because it is potentially lethal. 

.

In the second half of the game the Belgium team attacking the same goal were awarded a penalty corner for dangerous play by the American goalkeeper. The ball deflected off the goalkeeper’s pads rising to about a meter beyond a Belgium attacker who was on her knees and reaching or diving to play at a cross-ball. The ball was less than a meter off the ground as it passed by the attacker; it was not propelled across her and it was not at her – yet the umpire penalised the goalkeeper.  If that deflection off the goalkeeper was dangerous play so was the shot made past the defender  in the first half.  So what is going on? Where is the consistency Keely referred to?

.

There is one clue. That umpire is the same one who announced to a Spanish defender, who was  hit on the thigh with a raised edge-hit while defending the goal in a match against China during the 2010 World Cup, that a shot made at the goal cannot be dangerous (which is an abandonment of the subjective judgement of shots – if they can’t be dangerous no judgement need be made).  But, to grasp at another straw, in the Rules concerning penalties we are given:

.

 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. 

.

So a raised shot at the goal can be considered to be dangerous play when made during a penalty corner – otherwise there would be no need of the admonishment “but this must not be dangerous” – I don’t think it stretching the Rules of Hockey too much to suggest that a raised shot at goal made in open play can also be considered dangerous if an opponent is endangered by it.  The proponents of the idea that defenders are to blame if they are endangered when defending the goal offer as the crux of their argument only that there are a lot of people who think the same way they do (well they would say that wouldn’t they). 

.

This nonsense  goes back to an invention derived from the writing of a  FIH Technical Delegate,  John Gawley,  in an umpire coaching paper in 2001 (just after Keely began umpiring). He wrote that a field player defending the goal arrogated to himself the duties of a goalkeeper (but without the privileges of a goalkeeper) and could be shot at as if he were a fully equipped goalkeeper – unless that endangers him.  He also wrote, in the same document, that a shooter had to shoot at the goal and not at a defender positioned between the goal and himself. He began the document by stating that no player should ever raise the ball at another player be it at 15 cms of 50 cms and repeated that sentiment with conclusion that no player should EVER force another player to self-defence.

 Nij and Keely opt for an amended version of one extreme – that a field player between a shooter and the goal can be shot at as if a fully equipped goalkeeper – the unless that endangers him dropped from the statement – not quite pure invention, but a horrible distortion of what Gawley so naively wrote.  Gawley’s  publication remains the only umpire coaching document ever written about the lifted ball. A copy of it can be found in this article: –  http://wp.me/pKOEk-ki

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

.

Field Hockey Rules: Rule text following ‘interpretation’.

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.

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

Rules of Hockey. Deletion and Amendment

Rules of Hockey. Penalties. Free-Hit. Raised Hit.

A suggested deletion.

13.2.f

from a free hit awarded to the attack within the 23 metres area, the ball must not be played into the circle until it has travelled at least 5 metres or has been touched by a player of either team other than the player taking the free hit.

If the player taking the free hit continues to play the ball (ie no other player has yet played it) :
– that player may play the ball any number of times, but
– the ball must travel at least 5 metres, before
– that player plays the ball into the circle by hitting or pushing the ball again.

Alternatively :

– another player of either team who can legitimately play the ball must deflect, hit or push the ball before it enters the circle, or
– after this player has touched the ball, it can be played into the circle by any other player including the player who took the free hit.

This Rule clause ought to be withdrawn on the grounds that it is unnecessary and the conditions disadvantage the side awarded a free-ball in the opponent’s 23m area – the penalty free in the opposition’s 23m area is so restricted it is no longer a free-ball. The facility to immediately hit the ball directly into the circle from any free-ball awarded in the opponent’s 23m area should be restored

 There should instead be a prohibition on the raising of the ball into the opponent’s circle with a hit  or with a deflection of a hit – in any phase of play.

When a player hits the ball into the opponent’s circle, slight lifting of the ball, because of surface imperfections that cause it to ‘skip’, should be allowed for – the ball rising to no more than ball height – but the intention to hit the ball along the ground should be clear and a ball raised directly off the face of the stick-head should be considered a breach of Rule. 

This Rule therefore needs amending

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

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

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

Raising the ball with a hit, intentionally or not,  should not be considered an offence

 Except:    

1) when it is judged to be dangerous play

( [a] if at a player within 5m and at above knee height [b] otherwise at the discretion of an umpire  )

A rider that, unless shooting at the goal in the opponent’s circle, hitting the ball to rise above waist height (accidentally or not) will always be considered dangerous play and subject to penalty, is probably necessary, to avoid the return of chip or clip hitting over long distances.                     

2)  when a player hits the ball  into the opposing circle  and

3) when a player hits the ball within the opposing circle but is  not taking a shot at the goal.

The first exception reflects what is already common practice. (From the Umpire Manager’s Briefing  ”forget lifted – think danger“) 

Note for the Mandatory Experiment Direct Lift.  Any free ball that is lifted directly with any permitted stroke (scoop, lob, flick etc.) should not be permitted to be raised to fall directly into the circle.

Terminology.  With the introduction of the Direct Lift  the term Free-Hit  is no longer just a misnomer but a contradiction. It needs to be replaced with the term Free-Ball or Free-Pass .

Consider: – The Free-Hit may be raised with any stroke except a hit.

.

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

Field Hockey Rules. Opinions v Rules. Falling Ball

Rules of Hockey. Falling Ball. Dangerous Play

A question asked on a hockey related website. …an attacker aims to cross the ball into the circle and it either jams off a defenders stick attempting to make a tackle or raises off another player (defender) further away and the result is the ball looping up into a crowded circle.  ………………………  Free Hit or Penalty corner?

An opinion and advice given by a senior umpire.   An aerial is a pass. An inadvertent deflection is not. Please don’t apply the aerial rules to every instance of a ball in the air because that is absolutely not the intended use of the rule.

The Rule. 

9.10 Players must not approach within 5 metres of an opponent receiving a falling raised ball until it has been received, controlled and is on the ground.

The initial receiver has a right to the ball. If it is not clear which player is the initial receiver, the player of the team which raised the ball must allow the opponent to receive it.

I disagree with the advice given. This is a Rule designed to prevent dangerous play when the ball is in the air and falling, whether or not the ball has been passed from one player to another, or is intended as a pass,  is irrelevant.

It’s not a well written Rule because every ball which is raised to any height will fall and there is no indication of the height the ball must reach before the rule comes into force, but general practice seems to be that the Rule applies to a ball falling from above shoulder height, commonly from well above head height.

There is no indication of horizontal distance travelled either or of the method of propulsion,  so the ball could be scooped 50m or more or could  go almost straight up and down again as a result of a deflection – there is no mention of intent.  It is not, on the other hand, so badly written that the above advice could be inferred as true from what is given, there is no ambiguity other than the relevant height.

There is no indication within the Rule that it refers to a ball deliberately passed with a scoop or lob or flick, what are commonly referred to as aerial balls when the ball is raised over distance – and usually considerably above shoulder height. The term ‘aerial’ does not appear in the Rules of Hockey at all.

This same umpire was advising another questioner, a few months ago, “The aerial Rules do not apply to a shot on goal“. I can’t see any grounds for that deduction either. It is unwise, even pernicious, for a senior umpire to offer personal opinion of dubious truth, which might be taken as official FIH Rule Guidance, when it is no such thing: in fact the advice given is the opposite of what a reasonable person would deduce from the wording of the Rule.

I deduce from the Rule  wording.

When there is a deflection of the ball up off a defender’s stick and it loops into a crowded circle from outside the circle, play must be stopped if the ball is going to fall among  players who might contest for it, but I can’t see an offence there. There are two incidents of poor skill; the attacker played the ball too close to the defender, so the defender got a stick on it but failed to stop the ball. Neither is an offence, a bully seems correct.

If a deflected ball is falling to a player of either team in space inside the circle and there is no danger directly from the flight of  from the deflection, then the only thing that might give rise to penalty is an encroachment infraction. Depending on which side is doing the encroaching, a free ball or a penalty stroke should be awarded  (with a card in both cases).

Timing of the whistle is very important. The umpire needs to wait to see if danger is likely to develop – if not the whistle is not necessary the game can continue – if yes, then the potential danger must not be allowed to actually occur.

.

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

Field Hockey. Rules of Hockey. The non-Rule

Field Hockey Rules. Lifted ball. Raised hit.
From the 2013 FIH Umpire Manager’s Briefing.  Ball off the Ground.

Blow only in dangerous situations everywhere on the pitch – forget lifted, think danger.

Which does not fit very well with Rule 9.9. from the Rules of Hockey.

Why do we have a published Umpire Managers Briefing that appears to conflict with the Rules of Hockey?

But from the Rules of Hockey this is no better as a means for deterring the raising of the ball in a dangerous way or in any other way.

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

A raised hit must be judged explicitly on whether or not it is raised intentionally.

What does explicitly mean when used in this context ? I can’t make sense of it when it is linked with ‘judged’.

The word explicit means – clearly, unambiguously, without doubt.: explicitly is a derivative of explicit. Perhaps what is meant is  ’specifically’.

It’s obvious however that the FIH RC does not want the intentionally raised hit to be penalised unless the intention to lift the ball is clear beyond all possible doubt and, as it is next to impossible to be certain of an intention to raise the ball with a hit, especially if the hitter wants to disguises his/her intention,  it’s difficult to see why the Rule is there at all. The UMB gives the blunt – “forget lifted” , a tacit acknowledgement of the difficulty. 

I can’t see any good reason why it should not be permitted to raise the ball with a hit in open play outside the circle – as long as a dangerously played ball is carefully defined and dangerous play penalised. That is more-or-less what the UMB suggests, but that directive should be in the Rules of Hockey, not from outside of them.

Raising the ball into the circle with a hit and raising it across the goal within the circle with a hit, accidentally or not, could more sensibly be prohibited and better for the game than a general ban on intentional raising of the ball with a hit except when shooting at the goal.  

Even when shooting at the goal, hurling type play – lifting the ball and then hitting it – should be specifically banned (as it was at one time), and shooting on the volley should be without penalty only if the ball is directed downwards into the goal. The half-volley would I think have to remain a ‘dangerous’ judgement.

At present it is only when the ball is most likely to be raised in a dangerous way – while shooting at the goal from beyond 5m – that all control except the derisive “causes legitimate evasive action” is absent. Using ’causes LEA’ to define a dangerously played ball will never prevent a player playing the ball in a dangerous way because  ’dangerously’ is here an ‘after the fact’ judgement and the reactions of a defender to a shot are in any case beyond the control of a shooter. Forces self-defence is better but still insufficient – besides (absurdly)  ’forcing’ was deleted as a offence in 2011.

The control of the first hit shot at a penalty corner is effective because it is based entirely on an objective criteria. It’s probably too severe because a hit raised above 460mm will be penalised even if no one is endangered by it. But similar criteria with the addition of “at a player” or “towards a player” would be workable in areas outside of the circles. The judgement of intention is unnecessary - especially when there is a demonstrated determination not to ‘see’ such intent.

It is probably not fair to single out this Rule as the ‘non-Rule’, more than half of the seventeen Conduct of Play Rules are not applied at all or not applied as written. Obstruction  (ball shielding) is an obvious example, but I can’t recall any incident where a player has been penalised for dangerous use of the stick in normal play, or for intimidation or for making a dangerous shot towards the goal, or for using a forehand edge hit. A player receiving an aerial ball is never allowed to control it to ground before opponents close to within 5m. Most of these are  offences which require subjective judgement from an umpire and it seems that the most consistent way to deal with these offences is to ignore them. The exception is ball/body contact, which ironically ought, more often than not, be ignored.

That said, having objective criteria to work with to enforce a Rule isn’t a guarantee it will be enforced, as this post from a hockey player to hockey web-site shows.

I had this situation in a recent game. First corner the oppo has lined up to flick with an Adidas TT10 which I know to be an illegal stick. I’ve pointed this out to the umpire who seemed absolutely disinterested. I then pointed it out to his colleague who also just shrugged his shoulders. I’m afraid to say this really wound me up, they seemed totally unwilling to do anything. In my view its a rule no different to any other and therefore should be enforced.

This player obviously hasn’t noticed how many Rules are not enforced – and that is not because umpires are allowing advantage instead of penalising.
.

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

Field Hockey Rules: Questions on dangerous play.

Field Hockey Rules. Penalty Corner First Shot. Dangerous Play. Penalties.

An odd set of questions I found on a hockey web-site.

 

In the guidance to 13.3l it talks about if a defender is within 5m of the first shot at a PC and is hit below the knee its another PC and if above the knee its FHD.My question is whether that is really meant to cover the runner at the top of the circle – or does it apply to the first shot if it is less than 5m from goal.So I actually had the scenario on Saturday where a scrappy PC resulted in the first shot being a flick from about 4 yards out which hit a defender in his midriff. He was just off the line and so i am asking should that be FHD under the guidance or PS?Similarly had it hit him below the knee then a strict reading of the guidance would suggest its a PC and not a PS – which surely can’t be intended.

To take the opening statement and the questions one at a time.

In the guidance to 13.3l it talks about if a defender is within 5m of the first shot at a PC and is hit below the knee its another PC and if above the knee its FHD.

This is the Rule relating to the conduct of a penalty corner. Yes that is what is written in this Rule.
It was drafted in a ‘knee jerk’ response prior to the Athens Olympics,  to the tactics of the Koreans for the defence of the drag-flick shot at a penalty corner. At the time it was not legal for a field player to defend a shot on goal at above should height with the stick, so the Koreans tried to prevent an on target shot by blocking it with their bodies, running out in a group of three and sliding bodily into the ball and the path of the ball without attempting to use their sticks at all. It was a stupid and reckless tactic and players were injured but it worked sometimes.

.

 I call the  Rule Guidance created in response to this defensive tactic  ’knee-jerk’ because it was unnecessary and because the consequences of it were not thought through.
It was unnecessary because the umpires involved in officiating the games where the tactic was first employed should have dealt with it with the award of a penalty stroke and yellow cards – and that would have been the end of it.

.

 One consequences of the new Guidance was to label all defending players running from the goal towards the ball at the top of the circle  ’Suicide runners” – a term which was used to justify the notion that a player hit with a raised ball was entirely to blame for being hit with a deliberately raised shot. Another, was to plant the idea that running from inside the goal towards the ball, and possibly along the line a shot at the goal could be made, was an offence. I heard that view given in television commentary by an International player during the 2010 World Cup.  The combination of those two inventions has since ‘evolved’, without any input at all from the HRB / FIH Rules Committee, to the notion  that an on target shot at the goal cannot be dangerous play – but the Guidance that a first shot at a penalty corner that hits a defender above the knee must result in the shooter being penalised for dangerous play causes some difficulty with that idea – so the question now arises (above) : is that Guidance only to do with an out-runner who is within 5m of the ball ?

.

By not specifying that the new Guidance is about an out-runner being struck with the ball  (and how precisely would that be done, if there had been any movement from the player hit off the goal-line and towards the ball?) and mandating the award of a penalty corner if a defender is hit below the knee with a first shot at a penalty corner, the FIH Rules Committee (at the time the HRB) have excluded the possibility of the award of a penalty stroke.

.

 That said, the removal of the gains benefit exception clause taken together with the fact that an unintentional ball/body contact is not an offence – even if it is a breach of Rule (Guidance Rule 9.11 and Penalties Advantage), would make the award of a penalty stroke incorrect, no matter which player was hit an out-runner or a ‘post-man’, unless the body/ball contact was clearly intentional on the part of the defender. This may not be the intended result of the deleting of one Rule Guidance and the alteration of another but it is the logical consequence of it.

.

Any playing of the ball into the body of a defender at above knee height and from within 5m is dangerous play, period, which answers this question.

where a scrappy PC resulted in the first shot being a flick from about 4 yards out which hit a defender in his midriff. He was just off the line and so i am asking should that be FHD under the guidance or PS?.  There should be no possibility that this action by a shooter should result in the award penalty stroke – but incredibly it usually does or almost as bad, play is allowed to continue if that is of adavantage to the attacking side – the team that offended.

.

Now this:-
Similarly had it hit him (a player just off the goal-line) below the knee then a strict reading of the guidance would suggest its a PC and not a PS – which surely can’t be intended.

If what is currently written in the rule book is followed a defender who is hit with the ball without intending to be so hit has committed no offence (an action that may be penalised by an umpire).  But since 2004 according to what is written under Penalties.  Advantage in the Rules of Hockey :-
12.1 Advantage : a penalty is awarded only when a player or team has been disadvantaged by an opponent breaking the Rules.

If awarding a penalty is not an advantage to the team  which did not break the Rules, play must continue.
penalty may therefore follow a breaking of the Rules; but why then point out in the Guidance to Rule 9.11. that a ball/body contact is only an offence if it is made voluntarily, if that has no bearing on whether or not an umpire should penalise an accidental or forced contact? This really must be sorted out, umpires should not have to choose which of several apparently conflicting sets of Guidance to follow from Conduct of Play, Penalties Penalty Corner  and Penalties Advantage.  Some ‘solve’ the problem by always penalising the player hit, very few even consider penalising the player who most probably caused the ball/body contact – the player who propelled the raised ball.  A start could be made by declaring that, subject to dangerous, intimidating or reckless play on the part of a shooter, any contact with the ball by a defending field player which is made below the knee and directly prevents the ball crossing the goal-line should be penalised with a penalty stroke. That action has been penalised in that way for decades – let us have it in writing.  It was considered possible to mandate a penalty corner for a no fault contact with the ball at below knee height,  it is certainly possible to mandate a penalty stroke for a similar contact that prevents the ball entering the goal – provided of course there has not been a prior offence by opponents.  The real problem is that even close range shots (less than 5m) that have forced evasive action or hit a defender in front of the goal and which have been raised to considerably above knee height, have also resulted in the award of a penalty stroke – and that should not happen. Shots made from within 5m and which are raised to above knee height and hit a defender should remain, as now, dangerous play offences, unless the player hit clearly intentionally moves to play the ball with the body while making no attempt to play it with the stick .  The absurd tag ‘Suicide runner’ must not continue to be used to describe an out-runner at a penalty corner and the mandatory award of a penalty corner, if an out running  player is hit below the knee from within 5m with a first shot at a penalty corner, should be deleted,  not least because it is in conflict with the Guidance to Rule 9.11. but also as has been pointed out in the original question, it is vague.  Unless such ball/body contact is intentional on the part of the defender,  if at a penalty corner a  defender  is hit below the knee with the ball  play should continue (provided there is no injury to the defender)  unless a certain goal has thereby  been directly prevented.  In other circumstances (a goal is not prevented) if there is injury to the defender and the shooter is not at fault, the incident could be treated as a no fault stoppage (bully) or the alternative  I have suggested in another article         http://wp.me/pKOEk-Kd            may  be appropriate.   Naturally the peculiar  notion that an on target shot at the goal cannot be dangerous play needs to be firmly squashed. That could convincingly be done by providing objective criterion for a dangerously played ball from beyond 5m of an opponent. It is absurd that the first hit shot at the goal at a penalty corner, even when made from considerably more than 5m,  is (correctly) strictly limited, but there is presently no height limit at all on a drag flick made from beyond 5m of an opponent, even if it is propelled (even intentionally) directly at an opponent. Elbow height  (120 cms) seems to be both easily identifiable and reasonable and could be used for all shots at the goal including those made in open play and indeed for all raising of the ball towards an opponent more than 5m away.

I suggest that a ball propelled at a velocity that could injure and within the black line shown in the illustration of a body be considered dangerous. The red line indicates an area where a rising ball will be dangerous to a player at almost any velocity.

There could also of course be a change made to the size of the goal.            http://wp.me/pKOEk-LX                  but that is not an immediate or even a short-term solution to the dangerous shot at the goal or relevant to the dangerous raising of the ball at an opponent in open play.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Penalties.

Procedure for the taking of a penalty corner.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Penalty Corner.

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

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

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

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

12.4 A penalty stroke is awarded :

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion?

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

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

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

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

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

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

This in open play during a high level match,

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

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

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

.

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

Field Hockey Rules: Frighteningly Bizarre

Frighteningly bizarre conduct from Internet field hockey forum moderators, they scold forum contributors for daring to question their judgement on a Rules matter and call their opinions “frighteningly bizarre”, when in fact it is the moderators who are wrong.

The issue was whether or not a ball raised at a goalkeeper’s head could or should be considered dangerous play. The true answer, as usual, begins “It depends…” and is “Yes”or “No” or “Maybe”.

For the purposes of the Rules concerning a dangerously played ball, a goalkeeper is not distinguished in any way from either “a defender” or “an opponent”, so logically (but perhaps not reasonably) any ‘dangerously at’ Rule which applies to field-players also applies to goalkeepers.

Should anyone think that bizarre they should take the matter up with the FIH Rules Committee (before the issue of the next rulebook in 2015) so any suggested change in the status of a goalkeeper vis-á-vis the dangerously played ball can be considered and an FIH RC and FIH Executice approved amendment made to the Rules of Hockey. Otherwise it’s conceivable that umpires might apply their own interpretations or be ‘advised’ in a UMB to treat goalkeepers differently.

Okay, that last sentence  is ‘tongue-in-cheek’, goalkeepers are obviously better protected by the equipment they are required/permitted to wear than  field-players are and don’t play in the same way – they deliberately put their body in the way of the ball and are permitted to do so – and there should be different Rules for goalkeepers in respect to the dangerously played ball in such circumstances.  But does that mean they cannot be endangered and excuse reckless play by attacking players? No and no and nor does it mean that Umpire Managers et al. can invent such Rules or coach as if they already exist.What it means is that the Rule anomaly should be addressed.

A ball can break a face grid or dent a helmet if propelled hard enough (which may mean at the very least the goalkeeper cannot continue as a fully equipped goalkeeper if there is no replacement helmet) and there is no good reason anyway why an attacker should be propelling the ball at high velocity from less than 5m at the head of a goalkeeper, even if the goalkeeper is wearing a helmet.  The ‘bottom line’, the ‘clincher’ in answer to the question asked, is that propelling the ball at above knee height at a player from within 5m of that player is currently a dangerous play offence even if ‘in practice’ such an offence is not penalised if the player is  a fully equipped goalkeeper and the the goalkeeper is up-right (be it standing, kneeling or sitting) and facing the striker.

When ‘practice’ does not follow Rule, umpires not only put players at risk, they also put themselves at a different kind of risk. It is not in the least bizarre to question ‘practice’ or to wonder why, in regard to the dangerously played ball here are not special Rules for goalkeepers, or to ask where the ‘lines’ concerning the endangerment of a goalkeeper are ‘drawn’. A real danger is that players other than the goalkeeper will be injured by deflections or rebounds when high close-range shots are made at goalkeeper or that shooters will take the same attitude to shooting at defending field-players as they currently do when shooting towards a fully equipped goalkeeper (which is the case).

I understand that in the USA at some levels of play, propelling a ball at above shoulder height at a goalkeeper i.e. at the head,  is penalised as an offence. Once again a sports authority outside the FIH has shown the way. The FIH Rules Committee would do well to at least consider if the lead given fits with  their declared ‘Emphasis on safety’, because current umpiring ‘practice ‘ in this area certainly does not. But umpires are declaring that they are “doing what ‘the FIH’ want”. (By “the FIH” they seem to mean what they themselves want and many of them have no hesitation in declaring themselves to be authoritative in matters of Rule and to try to ‘yellow card’ or ‘red card’ dissenting opinion, as if in charge of a match on a pitch, when engaged in what should be a discussion on a forum).

Take as an example of difference of opinion, a declaration made by one contributor concerning the fully equipped goalkeeper, to the effect that an umpire should behave towards a goalkeeper with regard to the dangerously played ball as if a goalkeeper was wearing all the protective equipment he or she was permitted to wear (and of the best quality?). I would take the opposite view. I think umpires should umpire as if goalkeepers in general were wearing only the minimum protective equipment required as listed in the Rules of Hockey to be considered ‘fully equipped’, which is helmet, leg-guards, gloves and kickers, because there is the possibility that this is what a ‘fully equipped’ goalkeeper will be wearing.

The goalkeeper is not ‘at fault’ for wearing only the minimum protection required, but an umpire may be at fault for umpiring as if a goalkeeper (or all goalkeepers) were completely protected from all possible ball impact. The Rules in regard to ‘fully equipped’ are obviously outdated, but it needs to be borne in mind that the Rules of Hockey are issued for all players and officials, at all levels, and not every goalkeeper is going to have the maximum possible protection. This is possibly a matter for Rule Variation at International level and (with permission) League Rules at other levels, but no matter how well protected a goalkeeper may be, that does not negate existing Rules or allow recklessly dangerous propelling of the ball at any player, including a goalkeeper.

Beyond the certainty of ‘within 5m’ any ball raised at another player is dangerous only if the on-pitch umpire at the time considers it to be so, because ‘legitimate evasive action’ is a subjective judgement. The ‘judgement’ made will depend on what the umpire has been instructed or coached to do in such circumstances and here we move into an area that really is frighteningly bizarre.

2008 Olympics.

2010 World Cup.

What could be more frightening or bizarre than for umpires to give attackers the idea that an ‘on target’ shot at the goal is not, and cannot in any circumstances, be considered dangerous play, or treating all defenders in front of the goal in the circle as if they were fully equipped goalkeepers AND as if there is a different dangerously played ball Rule for fully equipped goalkeepers, but not describing that Rule – that  is more than just bizarre.

(Add to that bizarre Rule Guidance from the Rules of Hockey that a shot, if going wide of the goal, may be considered dangerous play if it hits a defender – and if a defender attempts to play an above should shot, that is going wide of the goal,with his stick, a penalty corner will be awarded) ,

Who would not question such ‘logic’ from both ‘umpiring practice’ and from the FIH Rules Committee?

Well forum moderators obviously, who coincidentally, happen to be umpires and of the kind who won’t tolerate any criticism of their view.

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

Field Hockey Rules: ‘Updated’ – Shades of Orwell’s ’1984′

Revised 26th January 2013.

I wrote an article some time ago about a field hockey Umpire Coaching paper entitled The Lifted Ball , written in 2001 by John Gawley (then a FIH Level 3 Umpire Coach). I described it as the most conflicted document I had read about a Rule of Hockey. The Rule concerns the dangerously played (raised) ball.       http://martinzigzag.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/contradictions-and-conflicts/

This paper is however still the only one to have been written on the subject by an FIH Umpire Coach at any level and the only contribution to the information concerning a dangerously raised ball provided by the Umpire Manager’s Briefing (for use in FIH Tournaments but considered to be generally useful)  is this: -

Ball off the Ground 

Blow only in dangerous situations everywhere on the pitch - forget lifted, think danger

 Low balls over defenders sticks in a controlled manner that hit half shin pad are not dangerous

Which is of very little use to anyone who requires a description of what might be considered dangerous play. The FIH Umpire Coaching Videos are also devoid of any instruction in this area.

Those familiar with hockey will be aware of the conflicted manner in which the Rule is applied (or not applied) in practice. Many new to hockey watching the game today would have no idea that there was such a thing as a dangerously propelled ball: we now have umpires forcefully declaring that an on target shot at the goal cannot be dangerous play (I first heard this said in televised commentary during the 2008 Olympics. It was repeated by an umpire to a player at the 2010 World Cup, but nothing to this effect has been published by the FIH ).  There is an obvious need for a clearly written Rule that is based on objective criteria, rather than almost entirely on the judgement of ‘legitimate evasive action’ – which is  ’in practice’ ignored (such judgement is not entirely based on LEA only because raising the ball at an opponent who is within 5m is prohibited – but this too is often ignored).

In 2005 an ‘updated’ version of the 2001 paper, entitled The Raised Ball and Danger was published, It is reproduced in full at the end of this article. Unfortunately the ‘update’ is in fact nothing of the sort.

The facility for a defender to play at an on target shot at the the goal at above shoulder height was introduced as a Mandatory Experiment in 2003 and it is beyond belief that Gawley while updating his own paper in 2005 would not have taken that Rule change into account  and amended his paper accordingly. The Rule change was adopted into Full Rule in 2005 and by August of that year Gawley would have known it would be. The prohibition on raising the ball into the circle was withdrawn in 2004 but the ban is still present in the ‘updated’ document. Did John Gawley revise the paper personally? I very much doubt it.  The ‘revision’  is just a ‘hatchet job’ which seems to have been carried out (by someone too lazy and/or too stupid) to remove parts of the original in conflict with (sic) current umpiring practice in regard to the raised shot towards the goal.

For example this:- A raised shot has to be made at goal, not deliberately at a defender standing either in goal or between the goal and the striker. from the 2001 paper has been cut from the 2005 version. That  is not updating to reflect any Rule change by the then HRB (which was renamed the FIH Rules Committee in 2011) : no responsible Rule Authority would make a change which permitted deliberate targeting of opponents: the HRB certainly did not and the FIH Rules Committee have not.

This (horribly conflicted) summary passage from the 2001 paper :-

During open play, rising shots at goal are permitted provided the defending players have time to defend the goal rather than themselves. No player should EVER be permitted to raise the ball, anywhere on the pitch, that is dangerous to other players.
If defenders other than goalkeepers dressed in protective clothing or helmeted “kicking backs” (who have goalkeepers’ privileges in the circle), elect to defend their goal, then a shot that would have been permitted against a fully-equipped goalkeeper should be permitted against them. And if they stop or play the ball with their bodies or sticks above their shoulders, they should be penalised unless they were endangered.    (my bold underline)
has had the last four words  removed in the 2005 edition, but the outdated prohibition on a defender playing an above shoulder on target shot is still there – that makes no sense whatsoever in an ‘update’ .

This paper was not just “edited to bring it up to date” (circa 2005) it was  ‘butchered’ to better reflect (sic) current practice.

Of course the removal of unless they were endangered – which entirely changes what was written in the sentence which contains it and the previous sentence – could have been an accident, but that seems unlikely, especially in view of the other deletion. It is ironic that the word ‘danger’ was introduced in the new title but reference to incidents of dangerous play were removed from the ‘updated’ paper

Critique of the original paper. http://martinzigzag.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/contradictions-and-conflicts/

Although absolutely nothing else has been published on the subject since 2001, even the 2005 version is seen as ‘old hat’ by those who consider themselves to be ‘in the know’. This, for example, from both papers:-  ”the same conditions for dealing with a dropping ball apply for shots at goal as elsewhere on the pitch”  has been ‘over-ruled’ by an FIH Umpire (who possibly did not know of the existence of these papers) who declared on an Internet hockey forum  “aerial Rules do not apply to shots at the goal “. This individual described those who would apply the existing published Rules concerning a falling raised ball as having ” stubborn and outdated ideas about what constitutes danger.“

THE 2005 ‘UPDATE’.

The Raised Ball and Danger
by
J M GAWLEY

INTRODUCTION

 No player should ever be put into a position of self-defence against a ball put into the air at any height, be it 15 or 50 centimetres. 
A player having to face a ball approaching in the air should have a clear view of the full flight of that ball and also have time either to 
move out of its way, or to play or attempt to play it in a legitimate and safe manner So far as Goalkeepers are concerned, they 
deliberately put themselves "into the firing line" but are equipped to do so. Nevertheless, even they can be forced into self-protection 
rather than protection of their goal by dangerously-raised balls.

INTENTIONAL LIFT

Lift at an Opponent

If the ball is intentionally put into the air at an opponent at any height anywhere on the pitch in contravention of Rule 9.8: “Players must not intentionally raise the ball from a hit except for a shot at goal” the player who raises the ball is in breach of the Rule. Note that an accidental lift should not be penalised unless it is dangerous in itself or causes danger, e.g. by striking someone. A ball lifted over another player’s stick is NOT an offence unless dangerous. Flicks and scoops are permissible but not if towards an opponent within 5m. Note that it is permissible intentionally to raise the ball for a shot at goal.

Tackling Lift

 There is nothing in the Rules to prevent any player in possession of the ball from lifting it over the stick of an opponent to resist a tackle,
 be it in the outfield, in the circle, or entering the circle. The last point is important: where the ball is lifted in such a manner over an 
opponent's stick and enters the circle while still in the air, there is NO offence.
 Tactical Lift
 When a ball is deliberately raised in a legitimate manner (normally a scoop or flick) anywhere on the pitch the umpire should decide 
upon its merits. This form of play is used for tactical purposes, often to reverse the opposing defence. In general, it is fair to say that 
players who raise the ball in this manner consciously try to avoid danger to anyone in the flight path of the ball. The umpire is therefore 
seeking reasons why such a raised ball SHOULD be penalised. A player receiving a dropping ball should be given time and space in 
which safely to do so without real or threatened interference from an opponent (Rule 9.9):”Players must not approach within 5 metres 
of an opponent receiving a falling raised ball until it has been received, controlled and is on the ground.” Note that such a ball MAY land
 in the circle without penalty unless it has been intentionally HIT into the air.

If a player of each team is already in the place where the ball will land, i.e. not having moved into that space, then any danger from the falling ball is caused by the player who initially raised it. Accordingly, a free hit should quickly be awarded against the player who raised the ball.However, if a player of each team moves to a position where a ball that has already been raised will land, the first player to arrive must be permitted to play the ball and the opponent must keep clear. But, if both are likely to arrive at the same time, then the player of the team that raised the ball must remain clear until the ball has landed and should be penalised for failure to do so.

ACCIDENTAL LIFT

On the other hand, the ball is often raised accidentally, usually by a stick interfering with the flight of the ball, rather than by any deliberate attempt to play it. In such circumstances, the ball is likely to fly upwards in an unpredictable trajectory, thus being both dangerous in itself and likely to cause danger. A ball hit some 15 cm in the air into a crowded circle is an example. The Umpire, therefore, is likely to be seeking reasons why this raised ball should NOT be penalised but should wait to determine whether there is actual danger.

INTERPRETATION

 No matter where on the field the ball is raised, and no matter what the circumstances of the lift, the umpire must always judge whether 
a player has been genuinely endangered in any of the ways described. Umpires should be on their guard against players who simulate 
ducking out of the way of raised balls simply to try to "con" them into thinking that such a ball is dangerous. Similarly, umpires should not
 be misled by defenders, often in goal, who allow themselves to be hit by the ball so as to be able to claim that the shot was dangerous.
 The same standards of judgement must be applied wherever and whenever the ball is raised. It is therefore important that umpires 
recognise, and agree before each game according to the level and playing conditions of that game, what is the likely distance inside 
which those particular players are likely to have to defend their own persons instead of playing the ball properly. Other factors need to 
be considered for raised shots at goal, however.  

RAISED SHOTS AT GOAL IN OPEN PLAY

 The goal is there to be shot at. The goalkeeper is well-protected and has no grounds for protest about high shots at goal. So far as any
 other defenders are concerned, if they stand in the goal to defend high shots, they must accept the penalty if the ball hits them contrary
 to Rule 9.10: Field players must not stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their bodies.” They can be said
, perhaps, to have arrogated to themselves the duty of goalkeeper without having goalkeeper's privileges. High shots include hits, flicks 
and scoops.

Having said this, it must nevertheless be remembered that no player should ever be put to the necessity of self-defence, and that includes goalkeepers. Although properly protected, goalkeepers can still be injured by balls projected at them from so short a range and in such a manner that they are unable to adopt a naturally protective posture.

 In high level games, with physically fit, young, skilled players, it is possible that the minimum safe distance for a rising shot is about 3 m
etres. In less skilled games, that distance will probably be not less than 9 metres and could be more. In all cases, the distances may 
increase dependent on other circumstances, not least whether the players defending the goal have a clear view of the whole flight of the 
ball from the moment that it is first propelled upwards. Judgement of what is dangerous must necessarily be subjective. Perhaps the 
soundest advice for the umpire is to consider that any raised ball is dangerous unless proved otherwise. Players close to or near the line
 of a shot at goal must have time and room to react safely and play the ball legitimately. 

In general, it is probably fair to say that a rising ball that would not be permitted on the grounds of safety in the outfield should not be permitted, for the same reasons, in the circle, whether for a shot at goal or, indeed, for clearing a shot at goal – a goalkeeper’s kick, for example. The exception is that the intentionally raised hit is permitted in the circle for a shot at goal; otherwise the same parameters apply.

Note, however, that this advice is concerned mainly with high shots in OPEN PLAY. In these circumstances, there are usually few players
 in the circle and, as often as not, the shot is made in a one-on-one situation. During Penalty Corners, where numbers of players are 
required by the Rules to operate within the circle, other considerations apply, all concerned primarily with Safety.
 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. Note that 
any defender may use any part of the front of the stick at any height to defend a specific shot at goal (Rule 9.6) but, if the shot was going
 to miss, a penalty corner must be awarded. Other than that, any raised ball in the circle and its defence must be judged on its merits,
 i.e., was the shot dangerous in itself or, alternatively, did it cause danger?
 

RAISED SHOTS AT GOAL AT PENALTY CORNERS AND FROM CORNERS

 Players in the 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.
 Although hits to the attack from the area of corner flags (corners, hits-in & free hits) are taken in open play, they are considered here 
with the Penalty Corner as likely to cause crowding within the circle.
 It can thus be seen that any ball raised into or within the circle in such circumstances has a great potential for danger. Such crowding 
underlines the need for umpires to judge whether players close to or in the flight path of a raised ball have time properly to react to it. 
This is not to say that all raised balls in the circle are dangerous, nor that balls raised unintentionally into the circle are necessarily 
dangerous, but merely to indicate the potential for danger and hence the need for acute awareness and observation by the umpire.

Penalty Corner

 The defenders (including the Goalkeeper) are prohibited from deliberately raising the ball from a hit within the circle, or indeed outside it
 - Rule 9.8 applies.
 The attackers, however, MAY deliberately raise the ball from a hit or other type of shot in the circle, but only for a shot at goal - not for a
 hit across the circle, for example. The one caveat to this permission is that the FIRST hit at goal at a Penalty Corner must comply with 
Rule 13.2k: “if the first shot at goal is a hit (as opposed to a push, flick or scoop), the ball must cross the goal-line, or be on a path which
 would have resulted in its crossing the goal-line, at a height of not more than 460mm (the height of the backboard) before any deflection,
 for a goal to be scored.”
 Generally, the ball that is raised in the circle has a possible element of danger. But remember that any player may raise the ball over the
 stick of an opponent to resist a tackle.
 Once the first hit at goal in a Penalty Corner has been made, all subsequent hits may be at any height consonant with safety, as already
 described. However, still with the Penalty Corner, any other stroke to raise the ball may be made at any time, with no limit being placed 
on the height of the ball at any part of its flight. The only caveat on these forms of shot - usually scoops or flicks - is that of safety. In this
 context, if a defender in a normal stance within 5 metres of the first shot at goal is hit by the ball below the knees, a penalty corner should
 be awarded. If the defender is hit above the knee, a free hit should be awarded to the defending team. And let us remember that the 
Penalty Corner Rule - specifically those sections applying to the first hit - ceases to apply if the ball goes beyond 5 metres from the circle 
before re-entering it (Rule 13.2m).
 The Scooped 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 the
ir sticks whilst it is above their shoulders, for hitting the ball away in a dangerous manner, nor for using any part of their body to stop the 
ball. Only if the flick or scoop is at very short range, or if there are players in the line of sight between striker and goal, might the striker 
be penalised, and then usually only if the ball is still rising or if it is so low throughout its flight as to be obscured, for the receiver, by other
 players.
 Umpires should remember that the same conditions for dealing with a dropping ball apply for shots at goal as elsewhere on the pitch
 i.e. the player receiving the ball must be given time and space (5 metres) in which to receive it safely, i.e. the receiving defender should 
not be harried by a close opponent. 

The Rising Shot

Having accepted the caveats noted above for the Penalty Corner, let us broaden thought to embrace the crowded circle. The same considerations previously mentioned still apply, i.e. the goal is there to be shot at, and defenders who arrogate to themselves the duty of goalkeeper must accept the penalty if they prevent a goal other than legitimately with their sticks. But, given the crowding already discussed, it is even more important that players defending any raised ball, regardless of its height, should have a clear view of the ball’s trajectory and have time either to remove themselves from its path or to play or try to play the ball legitimately. If they do not have such time, the ball raised at them must be considered dangerous and penalised immediately. But umpires should be on their guard against players who deliberately allow themselves to be hit by the ball so as to be able to claim that the lift was dangerous.

 It is the rising ball that is most likely to cause most danger, either because it can strike a player's body, where its energy is likely to be 
absorbed, or because it can touch part of a stick and fly off unpredictably, with no loss of energy, to hit another player. 

Summary

When the circle is crowded, such as at Penalty Corners and for hits from near the corner flag areas, there is a high potential for danger 
from any raised ball. Umpires must be alert to the risks involved but should not overreact merely because the ball is in the air or the body 
of a defender in the goal is struck by the ball. They should instead consider whether players have the necessary time and distance to avoid 
physical contact with the raised ball in favour of playing or attempting to play it legitimately, and not flinch from applying the appropriate 
penalty if avoiding action could have been taken.

The necessity for the first HIT at goal at a penalty corner not to cross the goal-line at a height greater than 460mm should also be borne in mind.

Last updated on 13^th August 2005

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

Critique of the original umpire coaching paper. http://martinzigzag.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/contradictions-and-conflicts/ 
 

.

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

Field Hockey Rules: Aerial Pass. Evolved

Edited 25th November 2012

Now that the Direct Lift has become a Mandatory Experiment in field hockey this article has additional relevance.

“We simply can’t hold up the evolution of the game because of our outdated and stubborn understandings of what may possibly become dangerous.”

The above statement is a quote from a umpire who posted on an Internet hockey forum during a discussion about umpire positioning and shared responsibilities between umpires when a scoop stroke (aerial pass) was made, and also the position from which any free awarded for dangerous play should be taken. I agree that the game should be allowed evolve tactically but I do not agree that our understanding of potentially dangerous actions is outdated. I do think the current Rules and Rule Guidance are inadequate – but they (sic) always have been.

The wording of the Rule did not change greatly the last time it was amended in 2004 when the rulebook was reformatted; since that date it had been:-

9.10 Players must not approach within 5 metres of an opponent receiving a falling raised ball until it has been received, controlled and is on the ground.

The initial receiver has a right to the ball. If it is not clear which player is the initial receiver, the player of the team which raised the ball must allow the opponent to receive it.

There is no mention of danger in either the Rule or the Rule Guidance; to find that it is necessary to go back to a time when there was a separate section called Interpretation in the back of the rulebook – and even then the nature of the danger is not identified. At that time all actions concerning the lifting of the ball were dealt with under one Rule which had a number of clauses. The relevant ones were:-

13.1.3 Raised ball

A player shall not:

c. approach within 5 metres of a player receiving a falling raised ball until it has been played and is on the ground

d. raise the ball at another player.

.
The relevant clause (c) is identical to the current Rule. The (much reduced) Rule Guidance is taken from the previous Interpretation – which is here considerably shortened for brevity – leaving out raising the ball 1) over a prone opponent, 2) off a goalkeeper’s pads, 3) into the circle, 4) the flick shot at penalty corner etc.

Interpretation
scoop
The ball raised over a distance using a flick or scoop action must be judged for actual or potential danger:
- where the ball is played
- during flight
- where the ball lands.
The offence should be penalised where the danger occurs, not necessarily where the ball was originally played:
- when the danger occurs where the ball was played, the penalty must be taken there;
- when the danger occurs during the flight of the ball, the penalty should be taken from where the ball was originally played;
- when a player of either team behaves in a dangerous manner in the area of the flight of the ball, the penalty must be applied where the player is positioned;
- when the danger occurs where the ball lands, the penalty must be taken there.

Any flick or scoop made with an oncoming opponent within 5 metres is almost certainly dangerous and should be penalised.

The raised ball which is played into open space or to alone player should not be penalised unless dangerous.

Receiving player
A player receiving a raised ball must be given the opportunity to play it safely. If a player flicks or scoops the ball safely into free space and another player of the same team and an opponent reach the area where the ball will land at the same time, then the player of the team which played the ball shall give the opponent time and space to bring the ball under control.

Defenders do not have a right to the ball if an attacker is the initial receiver.

If the receiving player is clear of other players at the time the ball is raised, no players of the opposing team should approach within 5 metres until the ball has been received, controlled and is on the ground.

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

The last clause above, which I will come back to, and these three cause some difficulty:-

- when the danger occurs during the flight of the ball, the penalty should be taken from where the ball was originally played;

There appears to be conflict between that statement and these two:-

- when a player of either team behaves in a dangerous manner in the area of the flight of the ball, the penalty must be applied where the player is positioned;

- when the danger occurs where the ball lands, the penalty must be taken there.

but it may be resolved by considering danger caused by the player who raised the ball and then danger caused by other players.

Any player other than the player who raised the ball who attempted to play at a ball above shoulder height would have been guilty of an offence so it is only necessary (in the absence of dangerous play by others) to consider what would have been dangerous play by the player who raised the ball. We are given one instance – raising the ball at a player was against the Rules and certainly dangerous play if the other player was within 5m. ‘Considered dangerous’ is still the case if the ball is raised at a player within 5m (see Guidance to Rule 9.9) – so that understanding is not ‘outdated’.

The other potential cause of dangerous play (we can deduce from the text If the receiving player is clear of other players at the time the ball is raised) was to raise the ball into an area where opposing players were already within 5m of each other and likely to contest for the ball, which brings us back to this:-

If the receiving player is clear of other players at the time the ball is raised, no players of the opposing team should approach within 5 metres until the ball has been received, controlled and is on the ground.

Umpires reasoned (were told) that if a player scooped the ball to land among player who were already closer than 5m at the time the ball was raised the player who raised the ball was playing the ball in a way that was likely to lead to dangerous play – so they penalised when the ball was still in flight and took the ball back to the place from which it was raised, which concurs with this:-

- when the danger occurs during the flight of the ball, the penalty should be taken from where the ball was originally played;

There are however some problems with this approach. If the ball is scooped towards players who may contest for it and the players from the same team as the scooper move away from the opposing receiving player and allow her/him to receive the ball without interference, there is no danger, no disadvantage (other than a loss of ‘ground’) and so no reason to interrupt the game to penalise. It is therefore incorrect to penalise the offence (play leading to dangerous play)  immediately the ball is scooped up so that it may land among contesting players – which is what was common umpiring practice some years ago complying with the previous “at the time the ball was raised“. and “likely to lead to dangerous play“

The umpire needs to wait to see if the players close to the opposing receiver (when the fact is identified) respond by allowing that receiver sufficient time and space. (This is a personal interpretation because the Rule only forbids approach and does not demand retreat if opposing players are already within 5m – something the FIH Rules Committee could take a look at).

There may however come a point in time, in the flight of the falling ball, when it will be clear that the receiver has not been given sufficient space and there is no longer time for opponents to move away. This time must be when the ball is still beyond the stick playing distance of players in the landing zone, because to leave a decision any longer could be to allow a potentially dangerous situation to become actually dangerous, and it is no good to expect or hope that players will ‘be sensible’ (they have not after all had the sense to move away earlier while the ball was in flight) and not swing at the ball while it is still in the air. The whistle needs to be blown early enough so that players have time to hear it and respond to it before they attempt to play at the falling ball – so probably when the ball is still at least 5m off the ground. The umpire is then still ‘blowing’ according to this in the previous version of the Rule:-

- when the danger occurs during the flight of the ball, the penalty should be taken from where the ball was originally played;

but could also applying this -

- when a player of either team behaves in a dangerous manner in the area of the flight of the ball, the penalty must be applied where the player is positioned;.

that position could be where the ball is landing (rather than where it landed) - when the danger occurs where the ball lands, the penalty must be taken there.(which would be too late to avert dangerous play if there were contesting players beneath a falling ball) It not difficult to see why all these clauses were removed completely, but amendment would probably have been the better option.

Not penalising immediately the ball is raised but only when the potential danger (compounded by failure to retreat) becomes highly likely or inevitable, is a matter of timing. This whole issue is about the timing of the blowing of the whistle as potential danger is seen as the ball is coming down. The umpire should allow players in the landing zone time to comply to the 5m requirement but should not delay too much and allow potential danger to become actual danger.

The incident in the clip below followed an accidental deflection of a hit up off the stick of a defending player – not a intentional scoop into the circle – but it gives an idea of the kind of problems which may (almost inevitably will) arise from the Direct Lift of a free into the circle. Not intervening in good time, changed what could have been a bully or perhaps the award of a free to the attack outside the 23m area into what should have been a penalty stroke for the GB team. (The decision in the match, after a video referral, requested by the Pakistan team, was a free to Pakistan because the England player – clearly the initial receiver – hit the ball at above his shoulder height. The encroaching offence by the defender was overlooked).

An appreciation of the dangers of having players competing for the ball falling onto them from above head height is not an ‘outdated and stubborn understanding of what may possibly become dangerous‘, what has become outdated, and has never been clearly explained, is the need for correct timing of intervention and application of penalty.

The first approach outlined above – when the danger occurs during the flight of the ball, the penalty should be taken from where the ball was originally played; does not satisfy the present common approach, in which danger, once the ball has been raised safely and is in flight, is penalised with a free at the place it occurred, generally where the ball is landing, rather than where it was initially caused (by lifting the ball into a contested area) but I think the present approach to be flawed.

The flaw I see in the current approach is that there is nothing to deter players from scooping the ball into crowded areas and creating potentially dangerous situations, which they then rely on others to rectify- the lifter of the ball has in this case no responsibility for his choice of target (landing) area . Coupled with this is the very lax attitude that has developed to the distance required and to the time allowed to receivers to control the ball to ground (both Rule requirements which could be looked at afresh to ‘evolve’ the game – develop it tactically). The combination of these factors gives a decided advantage, I think an unfair advantage, to teams who use this tactic to gain ground and ‘overload’ the ball at the site of the awarded free – encroaching to within 5m of receiver while the ball is still in the air is a deliberate tactic and the award of a free is not a deterrent , not in fact a penalty, it is the minimum aim of such tactics. (Greater advantage can be gained if the defending receiver ‘fluffs’ the attempt to control the ball to ground, especially if he deflects it into the path of a closing or wide opponent).

There are several possible receiving/contesting scenarios when a ball is scooped over a long distance, in the majority of them, if there is a dangerous play offence, the free should be taken at or close to where the ball was landing, but where the ball is flighted to land in an already contested area, then the action of the player who raises the ball is the initial cause of potential danger, “play leading to dangerous play” (or the preferable “play likely to lead to dangerous play”) ; players on the lifter’s team who close on the receiver or do not give space are a secondary or compounding factor (and commit a second offence). I believe that in these circumstances a free ought to be awarded where the ball was raised, the first offence being penalised first. Nothing in the Rules of Hockey contradicts this view but nothing now supports it (as previously was the case): “simplification and clarification” have led to a lack of clear guidance.

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

A different issue.

This: - when a player of either team behaves in a dangerous manner in the area of the flight of the ball, the penalty must be applied where the player is positioned;

It is understandable that a player who is positioned in clear space, more than 5m from opponents or opponent’s goal side of opponents and on the run towards the goal, is upset to be penalised for playing at the ball above shoulder height in order to control it into possession. It’s an offence, but why? The disadvantage to opponents is clear, but there is no element of danger in such action and the game would be improved by allowing such play. For safety a line has to be drawn at close players contesting for the ball while it is in the air above shoulder height, but unnecessary restrictions should be removed.

Two areas to sort out: the timing of the whistle when a ball is falling into a contested area and the unnecessary penalising of players who take the ball down safely from above shoulder height in clear space – the latter could be said to penalised unnecessarily at present because of “a stubborn and outdated understanding of what may possibly become dangerous” but that is not syntax I would use.

I always included the suggestion when advocating the Direct Lift that the opponent’s circle should be excluded as a target area because of the possibility of attempts by attackers to volley the ball towards the goal. The addition of the facility to lift the ball directly from a free awarded outside the opposing 23m area to land in the circle, which is now part of a Mandatory Experiment, will I believe lead to ‘interesting’ ramifications. We shall no doubt shortly see.

This is a clip from an EHL game, where controlling the ball to ground from above shoulder height is being experimented with. The umpire awarded a goal from this shot but I think that this type of play should not be acceptable in any level of the game.

Here again (below) there is a timing issue. A goal cannot be awarded because the German player played the ball from above his shoulder height – but prior to that he was illegally encroached upon by two, possibly three, Australian players, before the ball was controlled to ground. The umpire should have been considering the award of a penalty stroke for the encroaching of the goalkeeper or a penalty corner for the encroaching of the Australian player closing from behind (who was within 5m of the receiving player before the ball was in the circle). The umpire was possibly trying to play advantage but in a strongly contested situation, where the alternative was a probable penalty stroke and danger was likely (in the ‘still’ below the German player has yet to play the ball), that was probably the wrong thing to do.

.

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

Field Hockey: Rule and rule application – opposites

Field Hockey.

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

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

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

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

The umpire presumably saw the lifted hit as accidental and also as not dangerous, because otherwise he would immediately have awarded a 15m to the defence – or did he just ignore it – following the UMB – (which in conflict with Rule Guidance)  instructs “forget lifted, think danger”.

The foot/ball contact is clearly accidental, and there has been for several years now, no ‘gained benefit’ exception clause (which previously could be employed to turn an unintentional breach of Rule 9.11 into an offence) , so there is no justification at all for the award of a penalty corner.

I note that several contributors on FHF are suggesting a penalty stroke ought to be awarded for the benefit gained from the accidental foot/ball contact. That’s very strange,  the rulebook suggest a 15m or “play on” to be correct, there was, according to the Rule Guidance (that is instruction about how the Rule is to be applied) no offence by a defender.

I am not sure that restoring the word ‘intentionally’ to Rule 9.11. would make much different to the way the Rule is applied. It ought to be done however, not least because it is difficult to see why it was removed in the first place, but remains in two forms, voluntarily and intention in the Rule Guidance.

How very odd it is that the way the FIH apparently wants the Rules applied (according to umpires) is not what the FIH publishes in the Rules of Hockey.

.

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

Field Hockey Rules: Participants are expected to know the Rules

Field Hockey.
http://youtu.be/nfEK90Dp8pE

Comments made about my observations on the dangerous play by the attacker in the video clip posted on You Tube.

thats dangerous how?/

the defender makes this situation dangerous by running down the line of the goal with no valid attempt to play the ball

the runner shouldn’t have run straight at the dragflicker

this is another penalty corner EVERY TIME. The attacker is allowed to flick the ball at any height from a penalty corner, and the defender is allowed to stop it, but here the defender has stpped the ball with his Body, not his stick, so it is a fowl.

So much for participants knowing the Rules or even much about playing hockey.

Penalty Corner 13.3.

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

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

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

It would probably be better if the Guidance for the Rule phrase “but this must not be dangerous” concerning a raised shot, was put first instead of last. It might then be read. Some participants are obviously not reading all of the given Rule Guidance or only remember the bits they like. Attention is diverted away from the Guidance to what is a prohibited action ‘dangerous raising of the ball’ , an action by the attacking player, to give reason to penalise the defender and even becomes ‘slanted’ against the defender because of this change of focus.

(Much the same approach was taken with the P.I.T interpretation of the Obstruction Rule the larger portion of which was about physical contact offences by the tackler (also given in the Rule following the Obstruction Rule) with very little attention given in the Obstruction Rule to obstructive play by the player shielding the ball. This so called P.I.T. interpretation (position, intention, timing by the tackler not the player shielding the ball) destroyed the Obstruction Rule before it was removed in 2004)

There also appears to be no understanding that it is not an offence for a defender to run from the goal towards the ball in order to attempt to play the ball with his stick.

An attempt to play the ball with the stick can only be made from within playing distance of the ball. The defender has therefore to close on the ball in order to get within playing distance.That cannot be done without running towards the ball.

The offence mentioned in the Guidance is the playing of the ball with the body having made no attempt at all to play it with the stick. Defending the body with the stick while running towards the ball is using the stick for self defence with the intention of intercepting the shot with the stick. No other assumption can be made about the intention of a penalty corner defending out-runner without clear supporting evidence.

That a player is hit with the ball is not evidence that he intended to be hit with the ball, such an interpretation would make dangerous propelling of the ball an impossibility -  but that would fit with the way umpires seem to be coached in respect of an ‘on target’ shot at the goal, which sets up a conflict with the above Guidance of course and with “but this must not be dangerous” of the Rule.

A player would not be admonished not to make a dangerous shot if a shot at the goal could not be dangerous – unless of course there is rule Guidance forbidding an attacker to miss the target and shoot wide of the goal LOL. But then why would a shot wide of the goal be dangerous play and an on-target shot not be? There is no answer offered, except “Because we say so”.

Moving on to situations similar to the one above but where the defender is more than 5m from the ball when hit – What decision should the umpire give?

Who has offended?  Obviously if the attacker has played the ball at the defender in a way that endangered him and forced an attempt at self-defence. That should be judged to be dangerous play.

The defender has not offended unless he intentionally plays the ball with the body. At one time there was the possibility of an offence being called against the defender if the defended gained an undue or unfair advantage from an accidental or involuntary ball/body contact, 

BUT that applied ONLY if there had been no prior dangerous play by the attacker i.e the contact was not caused by dangerous play by the player who propelled the ball (or one of his team-mates actively preventing a defender using his stick)

AND ‘gained benefit’, as it was called, no longer applies. It was deleted from the 2007-9 Rules of Hockey, then restored on the strength of a ‘note’ during the period 2007-9, but was not returned to the Rules of Hockey in 2009 or since then. To penalise an accidental or forced ball/body contact on the ground of ‘benefit gained’ by the team of the player hit is now incorrect.

One cannot even use semantics to ‘twist’ intended use and make “disadvantaged opponents”  create an offence because “disadvantaged opponents” applies only when an offence has been committed, it cannot be (should not be but is) used to ‘create’ an offence from an unintentional or forced breach of Rule which is not an offence . An unintentional breach of Rule 9.11. is not an offence:-

Rule Guidance 9.11.

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

The ‘bottom line’ is that a player should not propel the ball at an opponent in a way that could result in injury to that opponent if hit with the ball. At the moment any ball propelled at an opponent at knee height or above could be considered dangerous play but there is no Rule or Rule Guidance to that effect – it is an umpire judgement and one that many umpires seem incapable of making correctly.

There is no reason at all to penalise a player hit with the ball unless he intentionally used his body to play the ball – and such intention must be clear and certain. The same standard as is applied to the intentionally lifted hit and was applied to forcing offences, before forcing was removed as an offence in 2011, must be applied to ball/body contact. The vast majority of ball/body contacts should be “play on” situations.

It’s  odd how readily umpires have taken to the deletion of ‘forcing’ when one considers their reluctance (and even the outright refusal of some) to stop applying “gained benefit” *(the forcing offence is now “dealt with by other Rules” in which the action under consideration is also an offence . We have in many cases at present the absurdity of the forcing of self-defence (which is dangerous play) from a high shot incorrectly being ignored, combined with penalty against a defender hit with the ball for “benefit gained” or “disadvantaged opponents” even though the defender has not committed an offence and the benefit gained clause was removed from Rule 9.11 years ago.

There is an important distinction to be made between an accidental or forced breach of the ball/body contact Rule – not an offence – and an offence. In the case of ball/body contact an offence occurs ONLY when such contact is made voluntarily (intentionally). There are some individuals who insist that voluntarily does not have the same meaning as intentionally – and there may indeed be a subtle difference – but those who insist there is a difference don’t explain what it is in the context of the Rule Guidance. No explanation has ever been offered by the FIH Rules Committee (previously the FIH HRB) for the change of word.

In the majority of cases, particularly at the higher levels the shooter ought to be given a personal penalty, at least a yellow card, for deliberately targeting (making no attempt whatsoever to avoid hitting)  the out-running player with the ball in the way seen in the video – that would be placing the emphasis on safety and also, incidentally, on skill – while penalising dangerous play. The idea that a defender is obliged to allow an attacker to shoot without interference (that is without attempting to close and tackle with the stick) is a nonsense.

.

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

Field Hockey Rules: Body hit on goal-line

This is from a question posted recently on Internet field hockey forum. The original question was ‘slanted’ by an implied criticism of the positioning of the defender,  the critical remark has been omitted.

GK is beaten, player comes in to take shot at goal. A defender is positioned on the goal-line ……………. Shot or flick is taken within 5m of the defender and  hits defender on the body and goes out.

What call should be made?

There were only two replies made to this question on the forum. The first was , “It depends” and reference to a pinned post on the forum which is also inconclusive; the second was “Penalty stroke“. The second answer is clearly incorrect, the first was not an answer.

(I assume here that a ball that hits a standing defender “on the body” has been raised to above knee height.)

Here is my opinion based on the current Rules of Hockey.

Rule 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.

‘Legitimate evasive action’ (which I believe would be better expressed as “the forcing of an opponent to self-defence” an action referred to in John Gawley’s 2001 umpire coaching paper ‘The Lifted Ball’) is not the only definition of a dangerously played ball, there are also objective criterion which apply irrespective of causing an opponent to take evasive action to avoid (or try to avoid) being hit with the ball.

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

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

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

Players are permitted to raise the ball with a flick or scoop provided it is not dangerous. A flick or
scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous. (My bold. No mention here of height or velocity)

Putting the last clause above with that relating to a shot at goal during a penalty corner which is raised to above knee height, and assuming that rules that apply to flicks and scoops also apply to raised hits (which seems sensible as they are mentioned in the same Rule ); a hit or a flick that is raised to above knee height and at a player who is within 5m, must be considered dangerous play – evasive action is not mentioned in either Rule 9.9 or the penalty corner Rules.

Whether or not a ball raised from within 5m endangers a player has nothing whatsoever to do with his skill level or his reaction times, it depends entirely on the height and velocity of the ball, that is the propensity of that ball to injure anyone it was propelled at – and in any case a ball has endangered a player if  self-defence is forced (caused).

It might be acceptable, even if velocity is not mentioned in the Rule or Rule Guidance, to say a ball raised high at a player is not dangerous if it is of low velocity, a lob for example. It is not however, in my view, acceptable to suggest that a raised ball of high velocity is not dangerous because of the presumed skill level of the players. There are no differences in Rules or differences in application of Rule for different levels of play or presumed differences in skill levels. Even the variations to the Rules of Hockey that do exist for International level i.e. Tournament play, are not based on the perceived skills of the players. The two minute suspension for a green card in FIH International Tournaments and variation in substitution procedures are  not skill-level based Rule variations.

If a ball will injure a player if he does not defend himself against it then it has endangered him. It is irrelevant to the offence of endangerment (dangerous play) if the defence is successful or unsuccessful, (the player plays the ball with his stick, evades the ball or is hit with it) it is the causing  (forcing) by dangerous play of a defensive action to avoid injury that is the offence – in fact defines the offence – the same ball will not be considered dangerous play if it is not propelled at a player. If the ball is successfully defended but nonetheless disadvantages the defender or the umpire wishes to discourage such dangerous play, then the umpire should penalise the player who propelled the ball. A ball may be penalised as dangerous even if successfully defended with a stick, the criteria is endangerment not injury.

Players of high skill level do not necessarily have faster reactions than the average club player and are not exempt from the unexpected or from injury if hit with the ball. In any case attackers of equally high skill level to the defenders opposing them in top level games should have the skill not to propel the ball at an opponent.

It is obvious that ‘in back’ of the answers given (and not given) to the forum question  is the prevailing attitude that a different approach is or ought to be taken to a raised shot at the goal than might be taken to a ball raised at a player in mid-field; there are no grounds for this view. The fact that a ball may be intentionally raised with a hit while shooting at the goal does not nullify any Rule concerning playing the ball in a way that endangers another player.

The Rule Guidance would be improved with the addition of reference to velocity and height but it is not ambiguous – any ball raised at above knee height at a player who is within 5m is dangerous play and should be penalised as such, especially if that player or his team are disadvantaged by the offence. There is no reason for the umpire to reward either dangerous play or recklessness or lack of shooting skill just because the ball is propelled at the goal: players cannot legitimately shoot ‘through’ opponents. That unfortunately is not a view shared by all, in fact the opposite view is actively promoted and not just by the ignorant as in this quote: -

“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”

 but much the same view can be expressed even by (or especially by) umpires and umpire coaches but ‘dressed’ in  moderate language,

There is not a great deal of difference between saying “At the higher levels almost no shot will be considered dangerous.” (from an umpire coach, with what “almost” might mean not explained) and “Rules state everything goes in the D IF you are having a direct shot at goal “.

It may well be the case that at higher levels umpires will not penalise dangerous play, because despite Rule Guidance to the contrary, it is in their opinion not dangerous, that is evasive action is not seen as legitimate or a player hit with the ball is judged, without any evidence other than the fact of being hit with the ball, to have  intended to use the body to play it.

There is a strong case for the use of existing objective criteria and for the introduction of additional objective criteria to deal with shots made from beyond 5m i.e. up to 15m from a player – subjective judgement alone is clearly not good enough i.e. it is unsafe or is not ‘judgement’ at all, the decision always going against the defender as per the instructions the umpire has been given. The Rules do not state that “everything goes” when a direct shot at goal is being made, that would be the same as saying that “there is a Rule that there is no Rule”, which is illogical. But regrettably umpires, and so of course players, behave as if this is the case.

Acceptance of risk is acceptance of the risk of accidental incidents, such as deflections, only and not of deliberate and/or reckless breaches of Rule.

The correct answer to the question posed at the start is a 15m free to the defence for a clear contravention of   ” ball propelled at a player within 5m at above knee height” which, according to Rule Guidance, is dangerous play.

The ball does not of course have to be raised above knee height to be dangerous to a defender who has fallen to the ground. Here is an example of clueless umpiring that illustrates this point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxEGS7m478Y&feature=colike

If we pretend for the moment that there is a ‘gained benefit’ clause (which is clearly necessary to deal with incidents like this) or that the body/ball contact by the defender hit was intentional, then the first ball/body contact should have been penalised and a penalty stroke awarded.

But the umpire did not intervene, he allowed a second shot by another attacker. That second shot was made  into the body of the defender, who was still on the ground, that shot was clearly dangerous and reckless (the attacking player had time and choices). The umpire should have then awarded a 15m, he should not, having played ‘advantage’, allowing a second shot, have reverted to a penalty stroke for the first contact and nor should he have awarded a penalty stroke for the second. As the UMB points out, whistle timing is critical and common sense should be applied.
.

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

Field Hockey Rules: For Safety Reasons

Field Hockey

Rule 13.2

h. from a free hit awarded to the attack within the 23 metres area, the ball must not be played into the circle until it has travelled at least 5 metres or has been touched by a player of either team other than the player taking the free hit.

Is this because a free hit is inherently dangerous or because direct hits into the circle in open play – no matter how made – are not dangerous?

The attacker in the clip below deliberately breaches two Rules when playing the ball into the circle.

1) Use of forehand edge when hitting the ball hard.

2) Intentionally raising the ball with a hit.

Both offences are ignored (or not seen) by the umpire – and that, although clearly incorrect, is obviously what the players expected.

There is a probably a third offence. I think raising the ball into a group of  players from opposing sides who are positioned in front of the goal to be play likely to lead to dangerous play (the previous wording of the dangerously played ball Rule) – now that the wording is “leads to dangerous play” the  judgement “likely to” has been removed. This begs the question “What would be considered a dangerously raised ball in these circumstances?” 

It would make far more sense to allow a free awarded in the 23m area to be played directly into the circle but to prohibit any raising of the ball into the circle with a hit – accidental or not – and  also to prohibit an above knee height deflection of the ball into the circle off the stick of an attacker. Treating an open play raised ball differently to one played from a free awarded in the opposition’s 23m area – for safety reasons – is absurd when there is such a cavalier attitude to obvious and potentially dangerous breaches of Rule in open play.

Why has this been allowed to happen – for consistency, common sense, because ” It is what the FIH wants” ?  (Which is obviously not the case as it conflicts with the Rules of Hockey provided by the FIH)

.

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

Field Hockey Rules: Contradictions and conflicts

Revised   27th September, 2012

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 metres outside 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 a Rule 13.1.3d A player shall not raise the ball at another player extant 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 penalised unless 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. 
.

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