Rules of Hockey. ‘Foot’. Forcing. “Gains benefit”. Confusion and con.
I included these opening posts when posting the entire discussion thread in my article Loopy Vicious Circles http://wp.me/pKOEk-VFon April 1st. but did not comment on the individual posts except to say that some of the contributors seemed to be unaware of the topic of the thread. ‘Distraction techniques’ used in discussion – the politician’s trick of answering the question they have an answer for or want to answer, rather than the questions asked, often done ‘automatically’, as if to a script – is evident here, but I don’t think it is deliberate, the posters are just repeating arguments that those who have previously employed such evasions have ‘trained’ them to give. The same pattern can be seen in umpiring decisions given.
The thread begins with several questions from someone new to umpiring – and maybe even new to field-hockey.
Dan Quinton Can you more experienced umpires please advise on what you look out for and what you do about attackers intentionally pushing the ball onto a defenders foot in the D. I am still struggling with the fact that players always expect a PC to be given if the ball hits a defenders foot in D, whatever happens.
Dan Quinton is the kind of novice that this advice – from a UK County Umpires Association Handbook – was aimed at :-
The notes to the foot body rule 9.11 say it is an offence ‘only’ when contact with the ball is ‘voluntary’, but in practice an accidental contact that alters the balance of play is just as much an offence as deliberately playing with foot or body.
This is just one example of interpreting rules consistently with your partner and with other umpires the teams will have. Sometimes their interpretation will differ from how the rule seems, to you, to read. But you must umpire play their way, and never apply your own version. If that leaves you uncomfortable then a bit of lateral thinking should soon enough make the same sense of it for you as it does for everyone else.
That advice is pernicious nonsense but it is typical of the kind of instruction given to novice umpires, especially young ones, by umpire coaches from their local umpiring associations. The correct advice would be to get to know and understand the Rule and Rule Guidance as given in the rule book and to apply it literally as written. Those who would react with feigned horror at such an idea and point out the many flaws there are in the published Rules of Hockey, might then do something to address such flaws, instead of dismissing the parts that do not fit with their ‘personal philosophy’ of how hockey should be both governed and umpired – their own ‘interpretations’ (which are, of course, in the opinion of these umpires, far superior to the Rule and Rule Guidance published by the FIH Rules Committee) . The author of the above rubbish regularly posts on a hockey related website that umpires commonly allow play to continue when there is an unintentional foot/ball contact – a view at odds with what he has been coaching – because ‘in practice’ any foot/ball contact will be assumed to alter the balance of play in some way .
kaiwawaoThe simple answer is that you can’t do anything about the “manufactured foul” as the rule against it was deleted a little while back. Your only consideration now is whether there was any danger – you cannot penalise an attacker for putting the ball onto a foot in the D.
That is exactly the situation but then kaiwawao continues…
A slightly longer view I would add that is yes, you can certainly argue for a play on or no foul especially if the ball was going to go out of play were it not for the contact. Indeed if it does go out anyway you could then give a LC but you’d struggle to convince most players at most levels to READ the rules let alone know all the amendments that have happened in the years since they last looked at the book so your life will be easier to give a PC
Probably without noticing that he has done so, he has changed the subject being discussed – which was the forcing of a ball/foot contact onto an opponent by a player in possession of the ball – and writes about ‘arguing’ for “play-on – no offence” after the ball has hit the defender’s foot, the ‘no offence’ he is referring to being the foot/ball contact, not the forcing action of the player who was in possession of the ball.
The expectation of players that is referred to in the opening post is that any ball/foot contact will be penalised as an offence; but who, it must be asked, is the umpire ‘arguing’ with – if not himself. What has the expectation of players to do with giving the correct decision? Why worry about the expectation of players if one is convinced that they don’t know the Rules ? (That players do not know the Rules is – an often inaccurate – slur on players that umpires commonly and casually repeat, despite those same umpires ignoring much of the published Rules of Hockey and substituting their own ‘common sense’ so that players cannot ‘know’ what ‘rules’ are being applied.) Who creates the expectation of players but umpires? Players come to expect umpires to do as other umpires have done – the advice quoted from the hand-book above is for umpires to do just that – and not to try to make their own sense of what is given in the rule book.
I’m sure there are plenty of umpires who consider the removal unfortunate due to the the way it has legitimised the lazy players “winning” a PC because they “skilfully” managed to put the ball onto the foot of a defender when a pass or a shot would be more attractive or even more logical play.
But these umpires do not, it appears, act on their considered opinion. The removal of forcing as an offence has not legitimized the ‘winning’ of a penalty corner by the forcing of a foot contact by an opponent. The forcing of the contact may not be an offence in itself (but may also be dangerous play) , but the fact that the contact is forced must mean that the foot/ball was not made voluntarily by the player hit and therefore cannot be an offence by the player hit. The removal of forcing as an offence does not ‘automatically’ convert all forced ball/foot contact into an offence by the player hit with the ball, it simply removes the previous facility to penalise a player forcing such a contact. The two incidents – forcing and being hit with the ball – are different and separate and by different players, in fact opposed competitors.
HackerNot sure I would agree. For me if there is no movement by the defender to actively use their foor OR if the defender hasn’t IMO deliberately position their feet to block the ball AND there is no attacker positioned to play the ball (it’s no a legitimate pass) then its play on. I was quite a heavy user of manufactured foul so mourn its passing).
Hacker continues along the path the discussion has been diverted onto. He proposes several conditions to be met if the defender is not to be penalised (if the ball has been intentionally forced onto the defender’s foot by an attacker). That forcing was previously an offence by a player in possession of the ball has been overlooked – the part in brackets is omitted from thinking. I don’t believe this is intentional in this case, it’s just habit. Umpires habitually regard any foot/ball contact as an offence and a potential need for penalty. He doesn’t directly mention ‘gains benefit’ but writes of the absence of an attacker positioned to play the ball and as if intentionally forcing the ball into the foot of a defender could at the same time be regarded as a legitimate attempt to make a pass (the attacker ‘having (keeping) his cake and eating it’): it can’t be both. The gained benefit exception to the Rule Guidance to Rule 9.11. was in any case deleted several years ago and so the presence or absence of a team-mate of the player forcing a foot contact on the far side of the player hit with the ball is (doubly?) irrelevant. Attempting to pass the ball ‘through’ an opponent is in any case a contradiction in terms – pass being a shortening of by-pass i.e. going around, not ‘through’ – and very poor hockey, ‘passes’ are not made at opponents.
Inverting cause and reallocating blame has become a much used, even overused strategy, there are examples of it within previous issues of the Rules of Hockey and in ‘common practice’. The prime example of such an inversion of a Rule in the Rules of Hockey was the (now deleted) PIT Interpretation of the Obstruction Rule (9.12) which, in a way that was similar to the ‘flip’ from discussing ’forcing’ to discussing a contact offence – seen above – flipped from mention of obstructive actions by a player in possession of the ball to describing actions by a player attempting to tackle for the ball, which would have been more appropriately placed in the following Rule (9.13), (that forbids tackling from a position where physical contact would occur). This interpretation effectively destroyed the Obstruction Rule by distracting attention from the purpose of the Rule, the prohibiting of obstructive actions. The prime example of ‘inversion’ in the ‘common practice’ of umpires, is the unwritten ‘rule’ they have invented that declares an ‘on target’ shot at the goal cannot be considered dangerous play. Both of these inversions have become so ingrained (PIT is still applied even though deleted after 2003) that if umpires are asked to describe circumstances in which they would penalise a shot made at a player defending his team’s goal, made more than 5m from that player, as dangerous play or to describe circumstances of ball shielding – without physical contact – which they would penalise as Obstruction, they have no reply. In these areas umpires are no longer making or even attempting to make decisions about dangerous play and obstruction, they simply don’t see offences.
Dan Quinton thanks kaiwawao – as someone relatively new to umpiring (me that is) are you saying that there used to be a rule to prevent ‘manufactured fouls’ in the D? When and why was it removed? I dont see the logic as it seems so easy to do in the D and get a short for nothing.
When? Officially in 2011. Why? Because for some years the forcing of a foot contact was ignored; incredibly the FIH RC amended (deleted) Rule to follow ‘practice’. Why the ‘practice’? It is much easier to make the observation “Did the ball hit a foot?” than the judgement “Did the player in possession of the ball propel the ball into his opponent’s foot intentionally?” Once the habit of penalising foot/ball contact became established the reasons for doing so were simply ‘forgotten’, so even obviously forced contact resulted in the player hit with the ball being penalised as a matter of established practice and player expectation. ”An ‘on target’ shot at goal cannot be dangerous” is just an extension of the same idea – with a few added ‘bells and whistles’ such as ‘accepting risk’, ‘positioning with intent’ ‘causing danger by positioning’ ‘intent to use the body if the ball is missed with the stick’ – any excuse to avoid examining the actions and intent of the player who raised the ball and endangered an opponent by doing so. Motive? More penalty corners, more goals.
I have picked out one other post because it gives another ‘slant’ to the penalising of offences.
ToPpS I know at tournaments, we’re briefed that attackers have to “EARN” their short corners! As other members have pointed out, if the the defender has gained an advantage from having the ball touch their foot in the circle/D, then it’s a short corner. If they have NOT gained an advantage then it’s a play on.
Granted you need either the experience or the confidence (balls) to sell that to the players, as they are conditioned to expect the short corner. Blow it, don’t blow it but be consistent in your decisions throughout the match and you should be fine.
As the others have done, ToPps ignores the topic of the thread and looks instead to find an offence in the foot/ball contact and does so via the long deleted ‘gains benefit exception to the Rule Guidance to Rule 9.11‘. He also goes along with the strange notion that Rule compliant decisions would have to be ‘sold’ to players whom other umpires have ‘trained’ to expect something else: as kaiwawao noted, it is much easier to do what is expected (in this case award a penalty corner, even if it is completely wrong). The slant that ToPps introduces – from briefing he has received – is the ‘earning’ of a penalty. What an Umpire Coach should be conveying to candidate umpires is that where an advantage can be played it should be played, so players should not, as they commonly do, just shove the ball into the foot of an opponent and then immediately stop playing, assuming the ‘automatic’ penalty ‘won’. A penalty is in any case a penalty against the team of a player who has committed an offence, it is not a reward given to and certainly not ’earned’ by an action of the opposing team. The deletion of forcing as an offence in its own right has ‘dented’ that principle, but it still holds true: penalties should not be regarded as rewards and ‘played for’ or ‘created’. Umpires should not allow themselves to be ‘conned’ in this way, even if it is easy to ‘go along’ with the con and they are expected by ‘everybody’ to do so for the sake of consistency.
That umpires did consistently ignore forcing and still ignore obstructive ball shielding, but still insist on penalising unintentional ball/body contact, is just a historical accident, doing as other umpires have done and are doing; ‘common practice’ could just as easily been the opposite had a lead been given in the opposite direction.
Field Hockey Rules. Obstruction. Backsticks. Different penalties.
The first clip shows a defender deliberately shielding the ball to prevent an opponent making a tackle attempt and also moving bodily into the opponent – who is obliged to retreat to avoid contact (for fear of being penalised for tackling with contact). For some reason, that I cannot fathom, the umpires waves play on until a second attacker tries to get at the ball from the other side of the ball-holder, waits a few seconds, and then awards a penalty corner.
In the first incident in the next clip what looks like a backstick shot at the goal is scored from. Unfortunately the frame rate of the original is low, so the slow-motion is not much help in deciding what happened. The second incident is clearly backsticks but there is some doubt about the intent of the defender and certainly about her Rule knowledge. I say that because if she had knocked the ball off the base-line a penalty corner would have been used as a re-start (an alternative would be much fairer here http://wp.me/pKOEk-Kd ). If she had shielded the ball and ‘crab-walked’ it out of the circle she may not have been penalised at all. The player was obviously shocked to have a penalty stroke awarded against her team because she failed to turn the head of the stick sufficiently.
What surprises me is 1) that a deliberate obstruction, which clearly prevents an opponent playing the ball, is penalised with a penalty corner and not, as it should have been, with a penalty stroke. Why should it not be a penalty stroke? 2) that backsticks continues to be regarded as an offence almost fifteen years after edge hitting was introduced – when it was obviously introduced to circumvent ‘back-sticks’ and in response to a demand for facility to hit the ball from the left of the body – but 3) ball shielding and moving into an opponent while doing so – two offences – are not seen as offences.
In the 2010 World Cup it was obvious that the Chinese team had been coached to avoid giving obstruction (and they played very attractive hockey). This was not as evident in 2012 at the London Olympics, but the habit of movement away rather than turning and blocking was obviously still there. I suppose that by the next World Cup they will obstruct opponents as readily and as deliberately as any of the other top teams – a pity.
One of the justifications given for introducing edge-hitting was that it was very difficult for an umpire to tell if the face of the stick-head or the back of it had been used to strike the ball. That ‘reasoning’ made no sense to me at the time (1999) and still doesn’t. But it makes good sense as an argument to allow the ball to be played with any part of the stick -head.
The reverse edge hit is not an easy stroke to execute (and the ‘hard’ forehand edge hit has been banned because of the difficulty there is in controlling the path and flight of the ball). The incident shown in the video is outside the shooting circle and would be illegal even if not dangerous – the ball has been intentionally lifted with a hit – but too often the stroke is used like that as a means of making a shot at the goal, ’through’ any defender unfortunate enough to get in the way. Unfortunate because it is the defender who is likely to be penalised – even if injured. Another contrast in penalty but this time because of location - and the bizarre notion that an ‘on target’ shot at the goal cannot be dangerous play - rather than the nature of the offence. If that incident had occurred in the circle as a shot at the goal it’s not unlikely that the defender would be penalised for positioning with intent to stop the ball with his body.
Rules of Hockey. Deletions. The Offence of Forcing. The Gains Benefit exception clause.
There have been two significant deletions from the Rules of Hockey since 2006. The first, the ‘gains benefit’ exception clause from the Rule Guidance to Rule 9.11 (the ball/body contact rule). A note on the FIH website apparently initiated by the (then) Chair of the Umpires Committee, postponed the deletion until the expiry of the 2007-9 Rules of Hockey. see http://wp.me/pKOEk-xj Post January 2009, with the issue of a new rulebook sans ‘gains benefit’ , the deletion has to be accepted to have taken place, especially since it has not ‘re-surfaced’ in any subsequent issue of the Rules of Hockey.
The second, is the deletion of the offence of forcing (that is the forcing of an opponent into a technical breach of Rule) as an offence in itself, which took place in 2011.
‘Forcing’ is :- 1) The forcing of a body/ball contact, generally a foot/ball contact by playing the ball at an opponent from short range and/or at high velocity such that a contact could not be avoided by the player hit. The forcing of self-defence – legitimate evasive action – by such an action, defines a dangerously played ball.. 2) The forcing of an ‘obstruction’, again an action carried out by a player in possession of the ball, the ball holder generally pushing the ball to the far side of an opponent and then running into that opponent claiming that the opponent obstructed the direct path to the ball.
The illicit forcing of self-defence (dangerous play) and of an unintended ball/body contact have been either specifically prohibited actions or actions which should not result in penalty against the player hit with the ball, within the the Rules of Hockey beyond living memory. The gaining of an advantage or an unfair benefit has a more chequered history, having been deleted or omitted at least three times in the past twenty-five years.
These are from the 1990 rule book.
A player shall not:- 12.1 (e) hit wildly into an opponent or play or raise or kick (goalkeepers) the ball in such a way as to be dangerous in itself, or likely to lead to dangerous play or play the ball intentionally into an opponent’s foot, leg or body.
12.1. a) stop or deflect the ball on the ground or in the air with any part of the body TO HIS OR HIS TEAM’S ADVANTAGE.
The illicit forcing of obstruction has been penalised since the early 1990′s as a barging offence but was not much penalised before then.
Examples of forcing.
The Dutch player was awarded a free-ball.
This is a very unusual occurance – it might reasonablely be called an isolated incident and should have ‘earned’ at least a (long) yellow card, not a free ball.
.
A penalty corner was awarded against the team of the player hit with the ball.
The penalising of a forced ball/foot/leg contact is so common and ‘accepted’ ‘expected’, that not penalising such a contact would be an unusual and isolated incident.
The deletion of both ‘gains benefit’ and ‘forcing’ are obviously grave errors of judgement on the part of first the FIH HRB and then the (renamed) FIH Rules Committee. Both of these areas needed further clarification and amendment; complete deletion should not have been contemplated. The deletions have caused great confusion and not a little mischief. The text below is from a web-site that at one time ran a forum for hockey players and umpires. The confusion and the mischief are evident. Only one post has been omitted, the poster himself declaring it ‘off topic’.
The posts have been assembled by ‘copy and paste’, only one alteration to the wording has been made, a name, where a quote was incorrectly ascribed by the poster.
The topic of the thread was “ What you look out for and what you do about attackers intentionally pushing the ball onto a defenders foot in the D?”
Some of the contributors to it didn’t seem to be aware of the topic being discussed. In the posts that follow there is clearly little understanding of the difference between – allowing play to continue after an offence has been committed because the side offended against can play on with advantage (which an umpire is obliged to do) – and not allowing play to continue, (penalising) because an unfair advantage has been obtained due to an unintentional breach of Rule 9.11 – or awareness of the fact, that due to the deletion of the gains benefit exception clause, applying a penalty against a player hit with the ball, when the contact is forced i.e. not made voluntarily, is no longer a possibility within the Rules in any circumstances.
The Members of the FIH Rules Committee and the FIH Umpiring ought to read this ‘discussion’ thread. It is an opportunity for salutatory lessons to be learned about drafting clear Rule and Rule Guidance and letting ‘interpretation’ out of control and into the ‘hands’ of individuals who are ……………. let the reader decide.
****
The Posts.
Dan Quinton Unfortunately Justin’s thread on ‘foot in the D not always being a PC’ is no longer open to replies – hence a new thread. Can you more experienced umpires please advise on what you look out for and what you do about attackers intentionally pushing the ball onto a defenders foot in the D. I am still struggling with the fact that players always expect a PC to be given if the ball hits a defenders foot in D, whatever happens. kaiwawao The simple answer is that you can’t do anything about the “manufactured foul” as the rule against it was deleted a little while back. Your only consideration now is whether there was any danger – you cannot penalise an attacker for putting the ball onto a foot in the D.
A slightly longer view I would add that is yes, you can certainly argue for a play on or no foul especially if the ball was going to go out of play were it not for the contact. Indeed if it does go out anyway you could then give a LC but you’d struggle to convince most players at most levels to READ the rules let alone know all the amendments that have happened in the years since they last looked at the book so your life will be easier to give a PC I’m sure there are plenty of umpires who consider the removal unfortunate due to the the way it has legitimised the lazy players “winning” a PC because they “skilfully” managed to put the ball onto the foot of a defender when a pass or a shot would be more attractive or even more logical play.
Hacker Not sure I would agree. For me if there is no movement by the defender to actively use their foor OR if the defender hasn’t IMO deliberately position their feet to block the ball AND there is no attacker positioned to play the ball (it’s no a legitimate pass) then its play on. I was quite a heavy user of manufactured foul so mourn its passing). Dan Quinton thanks kaiwawao – as someone relatively new to umpiring (me that is) are you saying that there used to be a rule to prevent ‘manufactured fouls’ in the D? When and why was it removed? I dont see the logic as it seems so easy to do in the D and get a short for nothing. Gold, I probably do not come into the category of what Dan Quinton means by “more experienced umpire” but I will still offer a view If the ball is played (say by the attacker) intentionally onto the (defender’s) foot then the attacker has not been disadvantaged (he has chosen to play it there) and consequently no foul has occurred i.e. “play on”. Of course, it is often difficult to determine intention so I think most umpires would apply this interpretation only (if at all) when they are convinced that this was the attacker’s intention (possibly judging this by the actions of the attacker after he has played the hall and / or whether it could have been intended as a pass to another attacker). Another line of argument in favour of “play on” is that in order for an offence to occur the defender has to have “voluntarily” played the ball with his feet (or positioned himself with the intention of doing so). The word “voluntarily” is not the same as “intentionally” but seems capable of various interpretations; some argue that any player attempting to tackle a player with the ball is doing so voluntarily and is therefore likely to be penalized if their the ball makes contact with their feet; I find it difficult to agree with that construction and think that it should be interpreted so that a player who could not reasonably avoid being hit by the ball, should not be penalized. It is still subjective as to whether a player could have avoided being hit by the ball but when the ball is played at close range directly onto a stationary defender’s foot (especially at an unexpected angle) then I think that call can be made – and should be if it is clearly intentional. nerd_is_the_word I think the easiest way to blow the foot rule these days is to look at one simple thing: what would have happened if the foot wasn’t there. As kaiwawao has said, if the ball was goign to go off the backline, or would otherwise have benefited the defence more than the attack then play on. otherwise PC. One of the things that I and many umpires now use is to yell in a big loud voice something like, “keep playing” or similar and encourage the attack to continue in order to avoid having to blow a PC for something like this. johnreiss as has been said, there’s now no such thing as a manufactured foul. Either the defender’s foot gained him an advantage or it didn’t. If it did (eg stopped the ball going to another attacker, its a pc. If it merely brushed his foot with no benefit (no attacker within playing distance)= no offence = play on.
kaiwawao The rule was changed in the rule book effective from 1st January. 2011
The Rule which used to say that “players must not force an opponent into offending unintentionally” is deleted because any action of this sort can be dealt with under other Rules. The rulebook for the previous period had the rule worded as:
9. I5 Players must not force an opponent into offending unintentionally. Playing the ball clearly and intentionally into any part of an opponent’s body may be penalised as an attempt to manufacture an offence.
Forcing an opponent to obstruct (often emphasised by running into an opponent or by waving the stick) must also be penalised.The cynical view would be that it was deleted as it was not blown often. Comments that were on FHF previously (might have been deleted now the board software was changed) suggested especially at the highest levels umpires could not judge the intent of the attacker so could not penalise them. It’s a shame it was deleted as it’s clear that the manufactured foul cannot be penalised using any other part of the rulebook.
Gold nerd_is_the_word said: I think the easiest way to blow the foot rule these days Is to took at one simple thing: what would have happened If the foot wasn’t there.
I agree with this simple approach, in so far as it goes. However, it doesn’t specifically deal with the situation where the ball is played intentionally onto the defender’s foot (assuming a material contact) – unless you are also prepared to say (in appropriate circumstances) that the defender has not gained an advantage because the attacker has given away the possession and control that he previously had. I would be grateful for any views on whether such an approach is generally adopted – and, if not, the reason(s) for not doing so.
nerd_is_the_word Gold, that’s exactly what I am looking at. If its played into the defenders feet, was there an attacker behind the defender who would have received the pass? would the attacker have had enough room to regather the ball?or would the ball simply have rolled off the back line for a 16? as far as the attacker gaining material advantage, its not about the attacker losing control, its about whether the defender has made their life easier by stopping the ball illegally. Bondy A lot of philosophical debate could be had on this topic, and as we know there’ll be some very strongly held opinions on both sides. I want to add one practical point though, from my experience of game management at a high level. If a fullback is expecting a PC to be given, the odds are that a PC is going to be the “right” decision for the game – and not giving one, regardless of how you view the technicalities of the rules, is just going to needlessly annoy one team, and make the rest of the game harder for you.
chrisberry2k I’ve found that normally when you do give a LC instead of a PC once the defender’s asked “that hit a foot isn’t it a short” and you reply “where was the advantage?” – after a bit of head scratching you’ll gt a lot of agreement. You just need to make sure that you’re in the right position to be able to make that call. Easy if it’s played in to a foot with reasonable force then goes off the back. If it stays in play it gets far more hazy both in terms of the decision and potential agreement from the offence! pogoref I’m still trying to convince players and some fellow umpires that a LC is the correct decision where no advantage has been gained. As I posted on a thread some time ago, a more senior umpire stopped the game in order to speak to me and when I stuck to my decision he described it as a “brave decision”. Nij
Kaiwawao said The Rule which used to say that “players must not force an opponent into offending unintentionally” is deleted because any action of this sort can be dealt with under other Rules.
Its a shame It was deleted as it’s dear that the manufactured foul cannot be penalised using any other part of the rulebook.
That’s not what the first sentence is supposed to mean. There is no intent to penalise manufacturing a foul any more, which is what you take it to imply – it merely states that we are not to penalise the manufacturing of a foul as a foul itself, and whatever would have previously been treated under the manufactured foul rule, is now dealt with by any other rule that applies. Or, if no other rule applies, then we are to play on. So what would have previously been a deliberately played into the foot, is now just a foot. We don’t use the ‘manufactured foul’ rule – we use the ‘no playing ball with your foot or body’ rule. If an attempt to manufacture a foul is something likely to create dangerous play, then rules against danger are the obvious choice and readily available; if the manufactured foul does not create a disadvantage to the team who manufactured it, then we simply play on as per advantage rules.
pogoref While I apply the same interpretation as others, I do not consider putting the ball onto an opponent’s foot as being skillful. I would suggest that on most occasions danger will not be an issue but disadvantage will be because the ball is likely to stop or the defender gain possession. To me, this deliberate act is against the spirit of the rules and is a form of cheating. It is particularly galling when having to reward this action with a PC. However, all players expect the current interpretation so I will continue like everyone else.
kaiwawao
Nij said: That’s not what the first sentence is supposed to mean. There is no intent to penalise manufacturing a foul any more, which is what you take it to imply – it merely states that we are not to penalise the manufacturing of a foul as a foul itself, and whatever would have previously been treated under the manufactured foul rule, is now dealt with by any other rule that applies. Or, if no other rule applies, then we are to play on. So what would have previously been a deliberately played into the foot, is now just a foot. We don’t use the ‘manufactured foul’ rule – we use the ‘no playing ball with your foot or body’ rule. If an attempt to manufacture a foul is something likely to create dangerous play, then rules against danger are the obvious choice and readily available; if the manufactured foul does not create a disadvantage to the team who manufactured it, then we simply play on as per advantage rule.
I’d be interested to know who at the FIH you have spoken to who can confirm that Nij as I’m assuming you are not just stating your opinion in such as way that it sounds like official guidance.
If the rules were actually interpreted like that, it would at least encourage skilful play and probably more attacking, more attractive hockey as attackers would soon realise they have to use their ability to shoot or use intelligent passing especially when used with the current rule on body contact which advises not to penalise unless the defender used their body to play the ball or put their body in the way to stop the ball.
Unfortunately all that has happened with this rule change was to legitimise the use of ball to foot as a tactic for gaining a PC in the D even when there is no advantage or disadvantage from the contact.
Diligent kaiwawao said: all that has happened with this rule change was to legitimise the use of ball to foot as a tactic for gaining a PC in the D even when there is no advantage or disadvantage from the contact.
Correct, except that many umpires will play the advantage (no disadvantage). And you’re correct that a lot of people saw the change as ‘unfortunate’ . But it’s 2013, and those are the 2013 Rules.
ToPpS I know at tournaments, we’re briefed that attackers have to “EARN” their short corners! As other members have pointed out, if the the defender has gained an advantage from having the ball touch their foot in the circle/D, then it’s a short corner. If they have NOT gained an advantage then it’s a play on.
Granted you need either the experience or the confidence (balls) to sell that to the players, as they are conditioned to expect the short corner. Blow it, don’t blow it but be consistent in your decisions throughout the match and you should be fine. Keely likes this
Redumpire Can I ask a question about the reverse situation? If a defender has the ball in a tight spot in the circle and deliberately plays the ball onto an attacker’s foot in an attempt to win a free hit and so get out of the tight spot, what do we think should be blown? I’m pretty sure I’d blow for a FHD 99% of the time….
Bondy, Nij, keely like this
Porter There is a school of thought which says that if a forward is clever and skilful enough to put the ball on a defender’s foot, then the defender should be clever and skilful enough to be able to defend his own feet and prevent this happening. Does this also apply the other way around, as indicated in Red’s post above?
kaiwawao
Nij said: If the FIH wanted players who manufacture offences to be penalised, they would not have removed the single specific rule that targets the manufacturing of offences. It’s not a huge leap of logic to figure that, since they have actively taken out any reference to penalising manufacturing offences and have told us to deal with such situations under other rules, then we should a) stop looking to penalise the manufacturing of offences purely on that basis, and b) look at what other rules apply to the situation in its absence. In this case, it is particularly those on the ball hitting feet and, as with just about everything in modern hockey, the advantage concept.
So basically in other words, no, you don’t have any official guidance that your view on what this sentence means is what the FIH intended, you’ve just assumed your view is correct.
The note says:
The Rule which used to say that “players must not force an opponent into offending unintentionally” is deleted because any action of this sort can be dealt with under other Rules.
By the same sort of circular logic you employed, I could quite easily point out that as the FIH didn’t make the note ‘The Rule which used to say that “players must not force an opponent into offending unintentionally” is deleted because we no longer consider this to be an offence’ then I must be right.
I’m not getting into a debate on semantics, if you can get an official note from an FIH source to confirm this I will happily accept that, currently you are just writing several paragraphs of text to gloss over the fact you are stating your opinion.
Porter- if a defender is caught out by an attacker’s speed and is running alongside them in the D with the attacker closer to the backline/goal with obvious passing or shooting options available and the attacker suddenly spins and plays the ball onto the defender’s foot, is that something you feel the defender could reasonably have expected and been prepared to defend their feet against?
Moderator’s note: FHF regulars will spot a good few straw men here – challenges to write something that can be swatted down as ‘even more ridiculous than what you wrote before’. Please take care when replying: it is more useful to readers to discuss good current practice than what might have been. Keely kaiwawao said: if you can get an official note from an FIH source to confirm this I will happily accept that I’m not sure what would qualify as official enough, given that “notes” in the form of forum posts written by experienced FIH umpires repeating briefings from experienced FIH UMs have not been accepted in the past. On this topic, that terribly unofficial note on how we are apply the lack of a manufactured rule concept would read pretty much exactly like this:
I’m not sure what would qualify as official enough, given that “notes” in the form of forum posts written by experienced FIH umpires repeating briefings from experienced FIH UMs have not been accepted in the past. On this topic, that terribly unofficial note on how we are apply the lack of a manufactured rule concept would read pretty much exactly like this:
Very minor edit by official FHF moderator: sorry Keely, had to do it.
Diligent kaiwawao said: Porter – if a defender is caught out by an attacker’s speed and is running alongside them in the D with the attacker closer to the backline/goal with obvious passing or shooting options available and the attacker suddenly spins and plays the ball onto the defender’s foot, is that something you feel the defender could reasonably have expected and been prepared to defend their feet against?
My answer would be: not the defender, nor the umpire, would have expected that. But what happens next? - The moving defender kicks the ball towards goal, the way the attacker was going. No disadvantage, play on, except the attacker has to turn again to chase it. - The ball rebounds away from the attacker. PC for feet. At most hockey, an open attack with goal options becomes a PC, with considerably less chance of scoring. - The ball misses the defender’s foot. The attacker has lost possession. So whatever happens, the attacker’s team and bench are wondering why that ‘find a foot’ ever seemed a good idea. Will anyone try to ‘manufacture’ that particular offence again? Not likely. The ‘other rules’ have done their job. jayjay kaiwawao said: I’m not getting into a debate on semantics, if you can get an official note from an FIH source to confirm this I will happily accept that, currently you are just writing several paragraphs of text to gloss over the fact you are stating your opinion.
are you saying those of us on here who have regular contact with FIH UMs should ask them to please write it down for us after the briefing? because it is indeed as @Nij says: we’re to understand that sentence in the beginning of the rulebook to mean that manufacturing a foul is no longer a foul itself, but that many of the actions formerly penalised in reference to that rule, can now either be penalised under others (most commonly, i think, danger), or should be treated as “play on” situations, in accordance with the advantage rule. this is the common understanding FIH umpires share, and its being reinforced by what our UMs tell us.
now you might notice that this is not specifically stated in the UM briefing available online, and i think there’s a very simple reason why: the rulebook really explains it all. manufacturing a foul is no longer a foul. so we deal with every situation by applying the remaining rules. but even while we had the manufactured foul rule, you could easily have blown a player running into another player to claim obstruction as dangerous play rather than a manufactured foul. one option has been removed, the other remains.
imho, few umpires in my country had the sense (or maybe courage?) to actually apply the manufactured foul rule. a foot in the D was an automatic PC. since the deletion of the rule the FIH has placed greater focus on educating umpires to re-think such situations under the advantage rule and guidance, and i, for once, think this is much more effective in bringing about a genuine change. where before you had to make three decisions when the ball hit the foot (did it hit the foot? did it matter? was it manufactured foul?), you now only have two. i believe this brings higher consistency and makes it easier to understand for umpires who are aspiring to reach a high(er) standard of umpiring.
deegum Nij said: if the manufactured foul does not create a disadvantage to the team who manufactured it, then we simply play on as per advantage rules.
I cannot understand how in many instances, a “Manufactured foul” can result in a penalty against a defender. Porter’s example :”the attacker suddenly spins and plays the ball onto the defender’s foot,” I take it as describing a manufactured foul . ( Part of) Diligent’s reply: – The ball rebounds away from the attacker. PC for feet. I cannot understand how anyone could penalise the defender- it being implicit in the description that he would have zero chance of avoiding ball/ body contact Hence any penalising of the defender would be in breach of:
The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball or if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way.
Under this rule, advantaging or disadvantaging the opponent striking the ball is irrelevant. NO matter how great any advantage / disadvantage is.
nerd_is_the_word Gees this goes around in circles doesn’t it?
So deegum what your saying is that in that case the defender has not chosen to open their feet up to the ball being played?
Because that is the exact decision that every defender makes in that situation, to either reach for the ball and open up their feet, or to let the attacker shoot and make sure they don’t give away a corner.
And yes Deegum you are correct, it does describe a manufactured foul, a rule that no longer exists, and as has been said numerous times, is no longer penalised unless it breaks other rules.
Gold I have some sympathy with Deegum’s view of how Rule 9.11 should be interpreted. Indeed, based only on the words used, I find it difficult to see any other meaning. However, for whatever reason, this is not the interpretation arrived at by the vast majority (>99%?) of players and umpires and, until such time as there is further clarification in the rules or official guidance, it is necessary to use the criterion of whether the opponent’s team has been disadvantaged.
I like the way that Nij has encapsulated the issue: ”If an attempt to manufacture a foul is something likely to create dangerous play, then rules against danger are the obvious choice and readily available; if the manufactured foul does not create a disadvantage to the team who manufactured it, then we simply play on as per advantage rules”. However, in the context of manufactured “feet” (or at least some instances), I do wonder whether we shouldn’t be more ready to say that the attackers have not been disadvantaged because their player has given away possession / control rather than look at how the ball falls for the defender. Admittedly, the attacker is likely to get the benefit of any doubt but if the umpire is convinced that the play onto feet was not intended to be a “legitimate” attempt to progress an attack, shouldn’t umpires be prepared to adopt such an interpretation (even if the ball is subsequently falls under the control of the defender)?
redumpire At the risk of sounding peevish, does no one who supports strict adherence to the exact wording of the rules wish to answer this point? redumpire: said: Can I ask a question about the reverse situation? If a defender has the ball in a tight spot in the circle and deliberately plays the ball onto an attacker’s foot in an attempt to win a free hit and so get out of the tight spot, what do we think should be blown? I’m pretty sure I’d blow for a FHD 99% of the time….
If we’d blow a FHD 99% of the time in that situation (which I’m pretty sure we would), why wouldn’t we blow for a PC 99% of the time if the roles are reversed?
Jersey Jerry I do, Red. Factoring in the YHTBT, if the ball hits a defenders foot as a result of an attacker passing/dribbling/shooting its a FHA/PC. Thinking, as already stated, if the ball hadn’t hit the defenders foot, what would have happened? Only in the instances of a completely misplaced pass/shot, which hits a defenders foot some distance away and with no other attackers around, is it ‘play on.’ Kilmory Wishful thinking there Gold.
If the manufactured rule was removed because umpires couldn’t/wouldn’t enforce it then why should we think they will adopt your approach?
I only have the rules available to me, not high level briefings, but my personal opinion is the FIH bought in a rule that was not used by the majority of umpires and rather than just back down gracefully the FIH put in a meaningless explanation as to why it was removed.
It is obvious that the situation we are discussing with the “get something” foot in the D is NOT covered by the current rules, except that the defender will be penalised for playing the ball illegally. The fact that they did so unintentionally (and therefore not an offence) will happily be overlooked by umpires until that guidance is also removed.
And to answer Red’s post – Why would it not be play on? I’m all for equality. Cookie kaiwawao and deegum- what I don’t understand is why you think removal of the forced foul matters in the context of the ball hits foot debate. If you interpret 9.11 in strict terms with its guidance – ie the player only commits an offence if he voluntarily uses his foot – that isn’t an offence which can be manufactured. Its counter intuitive – I can’t force someone to do something voluntarily.
So the removal of the forced foul rule should have no impact on the consequence of how you umpire feet surely? Either you think the contact falls into the category of offence by the defender – in which case penalise if he gains an advantage – or you don’t in which case play on. Different people interpret the rule differently as to what constitutes voluntarily – but that is part of life – we all interpret events differently.
Gold
Kilmory said: Wishful thinking there Gold.
Agreed, Kilmory kaiwawao I feel most people here are ignoring my point in favour of what they imagine I wrote.
I am not disputing that the rule was changed nor do I blow manufactured fouls. The point I was making was this:
Nij made a statement that the rule was changed and the note in the rule book means that the FIH no longer want the forced foul rule in the game. My counter is that the note on the rule change does not make that point – it does not say that “some” or “many” offences that used to be penalised can be done under the current rules, it says:
“The rule… is deleted because any action of this sort can be dealt with under other Rules.
Clearly the action of playing the ball into the foot of an opponent who is not in breach of 9.11 cannot be penalised under any other Rules.
if you can get an official note from the Chair of FIH RC (or someone with the authority to speak on their behalf) to confirm that the forcing of a ball/body contact is not an offence I will happily accept that. I will not accept 2nd hand knowledge of unwritten tournament specific briefings passed on via a forum
Cookie
- it wouldn’t matter if that was how the rules were interpreted. Foot in the D = PC even when no advantage is gained is so ingrained that “gains benefit” should just be put back in the rules to make them logical and tie in with player expectations. Deleting it was a mistake and easy to rectify via changing the rule back or putting a clear reference on P1 of the book saying “read the umpire briefing for clarification on any query – it’s at www. whatever”
Gold Kaiawao, I agree with your analysis / comments about the 2011 rule changes and explanations. I consider the explanation to be lame but it seems that there was clear intention to change so that, by itself, a manufacturing of an offence would not be penalized. Some may regret this as it leaves little scope for the “brave” umpire to penalize such action but that seems to be the current position.
Diligent kaiwawao said: If you can get an official note from the Chair of FIH RC… I will happily accept that. I will not accept 2nd hand knowledge… passed on via a forum
What’s the chance of accepting an official note passed on via a forum? Your best route to happiness would seem to be 1:1, direct from the Chair of FIH RC.
jayjay kaiwawao said: “The rule… is deleted because any action of this sort can be dealt with under other Rules. Clearly the action of playing the ball into the foot of an opponent who is not in breach of 9.11 cannot be penalised under any other Rules.
aye, there’s the rub.
you have to get it out of your head that “dealt with” can be equalised with “penalised”. ANY action formerly penalised under the forced foul rule can now we dealt with by using other rules. sometimes that means penalising for an offence such as dangerous play, sometimes it means deciding there is no foul. that is also dealing with it under the rules, seeing as its the rules that tell us to play on.
i’m sorry if i have to disappoint you by saying that i wasn’t giving you unwritten tournament specific briefings As I told you, this isn’t even part of the briefing, and it most certainly is not tournament specific. i think you will be hard pressed to find an FIH umpire who has any doubts about this or is confused by the wording or sees any of the ambiguity some on these forms like to see.
I only have the rules available to me, not high level briefings Kilmory to be honest, you have the same info available as I do. the FIH UM briefing is available online. you might have less access to FIH UMs and umpires, but then again, there are some people on here who are FIH umpires and are in regular contact with FIH UMs and are happy to answer questions.
<rant> personally, i think its great that they share their experiences and are patient enough (well, mostly) to answer questions, even again and again, and i think it’s a right shame some people on here first refuse to hear what they have to say and then complain the FIH is withholding information or is not being clear enough about their intentions. that’s not a stab at anyone in particular, just me giving voice to my general frustration at some of these debates. yes, i think discussion and arguments are extremely beneficial and can be a great way of learning new things and challenging established views, but at some point it stops being constructive. and i think this discussion has long reached that point. and many others, who get dragged out of oblivion every so often to get rehashed once more. and why do we keep discussing? i think some, like me, are a little naive and hope that we might still persuade someone to our point of view. unfortunately, i’m more and more finding that some people’s opinions can’t be changed, no matter by how many valid arguments that can’t be disputed by anything else than “well, you’re wrong”. I think it’s a little sad that some people refuse to learn from what FIH umpires on here have to say about certain interpretations, but rather go round in circles complaining about the ambiguity or lack of clarity of something in the rule book, which really only is ambiguous or unclear to a minority of people involved (whether umpires, players or other people interested in the rules). however, i think that’s their loss. ultimately it might become a loss for this forum, if experienced umpires start disappearing out of frustration, and i understand that has happened in the past. sadly it will be most detrimental to the young or less experienced umpires who seek guidance from this forum. maybe thats the reason why some haven’t given up yet, who knows. </rant>
redumpire, alex.miles and keely like this.
alex.miles
Cheer up, jayjay I was stuck umpiring low level hockey before finding this forum. Keely was the UM at a tournament that was short for umpires, and so I contacted her through this forum. She said “As long as you’re honest with your questions and hear the answers, you’ll be a welcome addition to the team.” And so I umpired my first good tournament. I met two FIH umpires and an English Premier League umpire who could very well be FIH (all three have posted on this forum).
Now I’m a regular in my province’s top matches and have umpired the Bronze match at our Senior Men’s National Championships. I can honestly say that I would not be here today without this forum and the people on it like Keely. Some good does come out of this forum!
Diligent jayjay said: <rant>… some people on here …</rant>
Moderator’s note: The key ‘some people’ who trouble you were contacted by PM yesterday. It was made clear that FHF does not want the style of ‘debate’ that killed off HockeyWeb and Talking Hockey. Just so that they know that you know they’ve been warned.
jayjay alex.miles said: Cheer up jayjay
oh, i’m generally a very cheerful person. i was just expressing that my considerable patience is starting to wear down a bit. i know that there’s many people on here who generally want to learn, but those who don’t sometimes really do make it a bit frustrating. now, i love playing devil’s advocate as much as the next person, but sometimes it does get a bit much. sorry if i cam off a bit harsh.
deegum redumpire said: Can I ask a question about the reverse situation? If a defender has the ball in a tight spot in the circle and deliberately plays the ball onto an attacker’s foot in an attempt to win a free hit and so get out of the tight spot, what do we think should be blown? I’m pretty sure I’d blow for a FHD 99% of the time….
redumpire said: At the risk of sounding peevish, does no one who supports strict adherence to the exact wording of the rules wish to answer this point? I’m pretty sure you’d be incorrect a lot of the time.- Assuming it was the usual ” from 1/2 m” or so, or pushed practically all the way on to the foot. You can’t rule that UNAVOIDABLE contact is voluntary, Therefore there is no offence by (in this case) the attacker. Play on.. Or you could penalise the defence under:-
9.3 Players must not touch, handle or interfere with other players or their sticks or clothing.
An instance where the old “manufactured foul” would be useful, and not debatable, rather than using ” dealt with under other rules”
Refer jay’s post #38 ANY action formerly penalised under the forced foul rule can now we dealt with by using other rules.
I agree entirely. Please note, folks. If it was an offence under the “forced foul” rule it still is. -subject to any other rule changes since the deletion of the specific rule.
Diligent redumpire said: … does no one who supports strict adherence to the exact wording of the rules wish to answer this point? Deegum said: Please note, folks. If it was an offence under the “forced foul” rule it still is - subject to any other rule changes since the deletion of the specific rule.
Although I don’t support strict (blind) adherence to rules, preferring to go with fair play and consistency with the spirit of the rule, I will try to answer your point… again. Try thinking about it this way: re-read the 2011 guidance, not as “it still is under other Rules”, but “can be dealt with under other Rules”. That will allow you to join the many other umpires worldwide in allowing that, in a few situations, the outcome without a ‘forced offence’ rule is different from the outcome with a ‘forced offence’ rule. Just before that, at the bottom of page 4, the 2011 book explains that the changes “seek to simplify the game without altering its fundamental characteristics”. Removing the ‘forced offence’ freed the umpire to simply judge ‘foot’ or ‘danger’, without delving into the complexity of a player’s motives or options, or into the complexity of the notes to each rule. Most younger players didn’t know there was a forced foul rule anyway, only becoming aware when an umpire used it for a ‘Gotcha!’. The game has carried on as if the ‘forced offence’ never existed. The fundamental characteristics have not altered. The rule change found what was sought.
Deegum
and I’ll have to try to explain it , Again!
Diligent said in a few situations, the outcome without a ‘forced offence’ rule is different from the outcome with a ‘forced offence’ rule. But apparently, the outcome is different in almost all situations where the ” forced foul” rule would have applied -IMO
Unfortunately, Diligent, you are still left with:
delving into the complexity of a player’s motives or options
as you have to, for instance, decide if a player ” voluntarily” or otherwise, permitted ball/body contact
Without delving
into the complexity of the notes to each rule
I would have thought the intention of the notes in general were to, and generally do, make the rule(s) clearer, not more complex.
re-read the 2011 guidance, not as “it still is under other Rules”,
I suggest that folk should ” re-read the Introduction to the 2011 rules ,” Rule changes” section as written”, since it is likely the rules board meant what they said.
any action of this sort (ed: “forcing”) can be dealt with under other Rules.
Why should the note say that a non offence can be ” dealt with” under other rules? Perhaps because it is an offence?
BTW, I am trying very very hard to be polite and watching my phraseology. So, as far as I know I am committing / giving no offence in this post.
Kilmory deegum said: BTW, I am trying very very hard to be polite and watching my phraseology. So, as far as I know I am committing / giving no offence in this post.
Agreed, but you are trying to flog a dead horse!
Please leave it. We all recognise the point you are trying to make, the majority will never agree with you though. There is absolutely no point repeating the same thing over and over again in the hope that something will change. If you always do what you always did, you’ll always get what you always got. And no – that is not an invitation to change the words slightly but make the same point.
Dan Quinton said: Unfortunately Justin’s thread on ‘foot in the D not always being a PC’ is no longer open to replies – hence a new thread.
And now this one is going the same way. I’ll be very disappointed if another thread is opened to discuss this same topic.
****************
Makes one wonder why the FIH Rules Committee bother to compose Rules and publish them in a rule book, doesn’t it ?
There was of course no proposal during this ‘web debate’ to discuss restoring or substituting an amended version of either the offence of forcing or the gains benefit exception clause, as the making of suggestions concerning changes to Rule or Rule Guidance is forbidden on this website – as is any discussion of the way the Rules of Hockey have been written previously.
A brief exchange about ball shielding on a hockey related website.
Reminds me of the urban myth thread; always a good chuckle in the morning. Last week, I had a “he’s shielding the ball!”
I am wondering why you put “shielding the ball” in the urban myth category. Rule 9.12 provides that: Players must not obstruct an opponent who is attempting to play the ball. Players obstruct if they —- shield the ball from a legitimate tackle with their stick or any part of their body.
Sorry should have made that clearer. Shielding as in the rule 20+ years ago; defender comes up behind the attacker who is facing his own goal and has the ball.
and…….?
The sentence is I think unfinished and this person ‘knows not of what he speaks’, he obviously has no idea what the interpretation of the Obstruction Rule was twenty years ago or (unsurprisingly) even yesterday.
It was only ten years ago that we had this in the rulebook and also in the Umpire Managers Briefing for Umpires:-
2003 Rules of Hockey.
Umpires should be aware of players who are in possession of the ball who:
- back into an opponent; - turn and try to push past an opponent;
- shield the ball with body, leg or stick and stand still when under pressure; (my underline and bold)
- drag the ball near their back foot when moving down the side-line or along the back-line; - shield the ball with the stick to prevent a legitimate tackle.
“Be aware of” did not of course mean ‘penalise’ (to be sarcastic) any more than “dealt with by other Rules” means that the actions which would have been penalised under the forcing Rule (deleted in 2011) should now be penalised under “other Rules” (Some senior umpires are presently denying that “dealt with by other Rules” means can be penalised under other Rules - without explaining what they think the phrase does mean). But the other obstructive actions listed above are still considered obstructive offences and are still occasionally penalised.
Although we have been informed continually since 1992 – when protection for a receiving player was introduced - “The Rule has not changed only the interpretation has” we have not been told at what point (or points) in time “has changed” was no longer “is changing” or what the change/s of interpretation of the Obstruction Rule (if any) made after 1994 were and are.
The Guidance to the Rule (as it was written in 2004) was amended in 2009, with a clause extension – but first:-
A stationary player receiving the ball is permitted to face in any direction. (my underline) (which was the ‘revolutionary’ “change of interpretation” of 1992 – prior to that, in order to avoid obstructing a close opponent or one closing to within playing distance of the ball, a player had to have space or to ‘make’ space (with a lead run) when receiving the ball from behind – from the direction of his own defence (when his body would be positioned between his opponents and the ball) – in much the same way as a player who wants to receive an aerial pass from a team-mate has always been obliged to have space or to make space to do so – (the aerial pass should not be made unless such space exists or is being created.)
The clause extension:- (here given in red)
A player with the ball is permitted to move off with it in any direction except bodily into an opponent or into a position between the ball and an opponent who is within playing distance of the ball and attempting to play it.
For the first time specifically addressing the issue of ‘turning’ by a player in possession of the ball.
The Rule is currently :-
9.12 Players must not obstruct an opponent who is attempting to play the ball.
and one of the actions that is considered obstructive play is:-
Players obstruct if they shield the ball from a legitimate tackle with their stick or any part of their body.
That must include stationary shielding because a player in possession of the ball moving to shield it (when it was previously ‘open’) is dealt with under the clarifying 2009 amendment. Nothing in the Rule Guidance suggests that if a player is facing his own goal while in possession of the ball before an opponent comes within playing distance of it, the ball holder cannot be obstructing that opponent once that opponent is within playing distance of the ball and clearly intends to execute a tackle.
The whole issue seems for some reason to hang on the interpretation of the word ‘attempting’, but no interpretation of that word has been offered. The whole issue is complicated and made unfair by the (completely correct) strict application of this Rule.
9.13 Players must not tackle unless in a position to play the ball without body contact.
There needs to be balance between Rule 9.12. and Rule 9.13, the application of the latter should not make the former impossible – which is what the now deleted, Position Intent Timing Interpretation, did.
If shielding the ball blocks the direct path of an opponent to the ball (which it will) and forces the opponent to ‘go around’ to reach a tackling position (which it will – but is a tactical impossibility in most game situations – the ball holder just spins away to the other side) the opponent is obstructed but, conundrum, the opponent is not obstructed if a tackle is not attempted. This appears to be the current ‘practice’ an interpretation that was deleted ten years ago. The interpretation of twenty years ago was:-
Obstruction can only happen when:
an opponent is trying to play the ball
the ball is within playing distance and could be played if no obstruction had taken place.
Put in other words The ball could be played (at by an opponent) if no ball-shielding (by the player is possession) was taking place. It’s a very simple concept (and is as easy to judge as the now mythical ‘gained benefit exception’) why I wonder did umpires appear to have so much difficulty with it? Why do they have so much difficulty with it (it is also the current interpretation) ? The interpretation may “have changed” (as noted above – to allow a receiver time to receive and control the ball) but this aspect of it has not: why should it have? To keep saying, twenty years on, “the interpretation has changed” , without giving the least indication of the changes referred to – or not even knowing what they are - is disingenuous at best.
The notion that a Rule or an interpretation must be a myth and can be disregarded just because it has been established for twenty years or more is a very strange one. The Rules of Hockey are contained in a printed booklet, which until 2006 were revised annually and is now revised bi-annually. The FIH RC no doubt take account of the development of the game when considering whether or not to make revision.
The interpretation of the Obstruction Rule was revised in 1992 to allow a closely marked and even stationary player to receive and control the ball without being in breach of the Rule. What has changed since? The PIT Interpretation introduced in the same year was revised in 2001 – the second revision – and then deleted in 2004 – a third revision. Where did that leave the interpretation? Probably where the ‘gains benefit exception’ deletion is now – still applied because nothing definite was put in its place and umpiring habits are difficult to change, but effectively as it was prior to PIT- with the ‘onus’ being on a ball holder not to obstruct an opponent’s path to the ball (which was always there) and the impossible ‘positioning’ and ‘timing’ conditions imposed on a tackler by PIT, gone (but Rule 9.13 still in place) -so as it was in 1992/3. The problem with the deletion is that it was not selective, all this very useful advice to umpires :-
Umpires should be aware of players who are in possession of the ball who:
- back into an opponent;
- turn and try to push past an opponent;
- shield the ball with body, leg or stick andstand still when under pressure;
- drag the ball near their back foot when moving down the side-line or along the back-line; - shield the ball with the stick to prevent a legitimate tackle.
also disappeared in the complete rewrite (vandalism) of the rulebook in 2004 (baby with bathwater – again)
The last amendment to the Obstruction Rule Guidance was the clarification made about positioning by a ball holder – ‘turning’ – in 2009. The Obstruction Rule is not “a myth” and ball shielding, positioning that prevents a close or closing opponent from directly attempting a legitimate tackle when the tackler is his or her own goal side of the ball is an obstruction offence.
The orientation of the players to their goals has not been made sufficiently clear since 1992. There is no reference at all to it in the Rule or Rule Guidance. At one time everyone just ’knew’ because of common sense and common practice, that the receiving player referred to in the 1992 revision was facing in the general direction of his or her own goal-line and the tackler was positioned his or her own goal side of the ball. Obstruction by means of the body positioning of a ball holder was not a possibility if the tackler was ‘behind the play’ i.e. the opponent’s goal side of the ball and the ball was to the front of the ball-holder’s feet. The loss of that ‘assumed knowledge’ has left ‘obstruction’ incomprehensible to the modern umpire – and, unfortunately, there is no attempt at instruction from above, the Obstruction Rule is just being allowed to fall into disuse and fade away.
One has to laugh, when in other circumstances, an involuntary ’backsticks’ for example, an umpire is heard to justify a penalty decision by saying “That’s the Rule”. Why should some Rules ‘matter’ and others not?
In the video clip below the first part is from the Australian HA website in 2008 (a bit ‘behind the curve’ at the time). The coach commentator concludes “This is Obstruction“. It’s nothing of the sort, such play has never been obstruction, the ball is to the front of the player in possession of it (at no stage does she ‘pull the ball back’ and if she did, that would not have mattered); the opponent trying to get to a tackling position is always the ball holder’s goal-side of the ball and of the ball-holder. It’s more likely that the tackler is guilty of impeding the ball holder with her stick and risks tripping her. The second part is from a game played in 2011. There has been no change to the interpretation of the Rule (at least none announced by the FIH) in the interim, but what a difference in attitude. The ball holder leads the ball bodily towards an opponent and shields it past the opponent who is trying to position to tackle. That kind of play is obstructive, always has been.
This clip demonstrates what a farce has been made of this Guidance to the Obstruction Rule by current (non) application of the Obstruction Rule:
Rule 9.12. Guidance. A player with the ball is permitted to move off with it in any direction except bodily into an opponent or into a position between the ball and an opponent who is within playing distance of the ball and attempting to play it.
combined with:-
9.13 Players must not tackle unless in a position to play the ball without body contact.
Instead of a balance between the two Rules, we have one used to prevent the other. The Spanish player is obstructing deliberately to try to draw a contact foul (and to ‘run time’ as they are winning and there are less than four minutes to play). The New Zealand players dare not tackle from behind in case a penalty corner is given away for a contact offence and they cannot ‘go-around’ without losing defensive position. If this type of tactic is not penalised as obstruction, the only way to ‘solve’ this slowing and blocking play (which is not ‘attractive’ or ‘flowing’) is to tackle in twos or threes – that takes a lot of energy and draws players away from other defensive duties.
To repeat:-
Although we have been informed continually since 1992 – when protection for a receiving player was introduced - “The Rule has not changed only the interpretation has” we have not been told at what point (or points) in time “has changed” was no longer “is changing” or what the change/s of interpretation of the Obstruction Rule (if any) made after 1994 were and are.
The present interpretation, whatever it is – that is not known – is clearly not based on the current Guidance to the Rule published in the Rules of Hockey. Umpires appear to have no doubt what is not a breach of the Obstruction Rule, but no idea what is.
Field Hockey Rules, Turning, Ball shielding, Obstruction.
Edited 1st February 2013
.
Here is part an not uncommon account by a former player, who took up umpiring full-time after a long break from the game, having previously ‘dabbled’ at umpiring over a number of years.
I first umpired back in 1975 for a friendly game between 2 hospital teams. Over the intervening years I’ve umpired on a part-time basis at club level whilst still playing. Having had a break from hockey (work, marriage and family) I returned in 1999 when my eldest son started playing. I figured the quickest way to learn the new rules (no offside, no turning obstruction , etc) was to pass my Level 1; which I did. From then until 3 seasons ago I played and usually umpired a club match as well every Saturday. The last 2 seasons I’ve become a full-time umpire doing mainly club matches
.
This caught my attention – naturally.
I figured the quickest way to learn the new rules (no offside, no turning obstruction , etc) was to pass my Level 1; which I did.
The apparent absence of an Obstruction Rule, related to ball shielding by turning on the ball, is seen by this poster in the same way as the deletion of the off-side Rule. How can that be ?
How did he pass an umpiring Level 1 around 1999 if he believed there was then no Rule concerning ”turning obstruction” ?
This may not have been uncommon at the time because of the convoluted Interpretation given in the rule book, which caused much confusion, but it should not still be the case. In an attempt to make clear that ‘turning’, as it is commonly called, was and still is an obstructive offence, a clause relating specifically to this action (a player in possession of the ball moving to position the body between the ball and an opponent) was added to the Obstruction Rule in 2009. It was the only addition to the Rules of Hockey in that year, so difficult to miss, but most umpires apparently managed to do so – or were told to ignore it. (many if not most umpires had given up on trying to make sense of what was called the PIT interpretation)
(that, incidentally, was the year the ‘gains benefit’ clause – the one umpires still insist on applying - was clearly definitely not going to be returned to the Rules of Hockey, despite its retention during 2007-2009 due to a ‘FIH note’ issued within a month of its initial deletion from the 2007 rule book – again umpires are following verbal instruction rather than observing the deletion. The deletion should not have been made, there should instead have been amendment to the Guidance: but that is another story ) http://wp.me/pKOEk-xj
Here is the current Obstruction Rule with the embedded Guidance (except for that relating to third-party, which is omitted for brevity). The part in red bold is the clause extension added in 2009.
9.12 Players must not obstruct an opponent who is attempting to play the ball.
Players obstruct if they :
– back into an opponent
– physically interfere with the stick or body of an opponent
– shield the ball from a legitimate tackle with their stick or any part of their body.
A stationary player receiving the ball is permitted to face in any direction.
A player with the ball is permitted to move off with it in any direction except bodily into an opponent or into a position between the ball and an opponent who is within playing distance of the ball and attempting to play it.
I think it common sense to interpret “ a player in possession of the ball…. is permitted to move off with it in any direction except…..into a a position between the ball and an opponent….etc” as a prohibition on turning, on or with the ball, to position the body to shield the ball from an opponent who is in a balanced position, demonstrating an intention to play it and is within playing reach of it, in other words, but for the positioning of the body by the ball holder an opponent would be able to play at the ball immediately (‘but for the positioning of the body by the ball holder an opponent would be able to play at the ball immediately‘ is as concise a ‘rule of thumb’ definition of ‘obstructed’as I have been able to find in previous FIH publications and it is still relevant and useful as a heuristic when the tacker is his own goal side of the ball). I would be interested to learn of other possible interpretation of the words of the expanded clause taken together with ‘attempting to play at the ball’ and ‘within playing distance’ .
Is obstruction difficult for players to cope with? Yes it is, it demands some skill. In order to comply with the Rules players have to develop the skills necessary to face and ‘take on’ opponents or move the ball or move with the ball to keep it out of the reach of opponents – doing these things well results in ’game flow’ and that is one of the most attractive features of good hockey. An analogy of the difficulty could be taken from tennis. The sever in tennis is at a disadvantage until he learns to serve well consistently, then he has the advantage rather than a disadvantage when it is his serve. In hockey the tackler has a distinct advantage until the novice becomes competent in ball control and dribbling: then the ball holder has the advantage. With skilled players, without proper enforcement of the Obstruction Rule – and with physical contact prohibited (Rule 9.13) – an opponent trying to tackle for the ball is unfairly disadvantaged.
That there is now no Rule prohibiting shielding of the ball is presently a notion as widely, but wrongly accepted or unchallenged *, as the oft repeated but also incorrect ‘mantra’ – ”an on target shot at the goal cannot be dangerous play” and “any ball/foot contact will be of benefit to the player hit – or disadvantages opponents “- (and is therefore an offence and should be penalised – unless opponents can play on with advantage). Such disinformation is wrong and pernicious, where does it come from? It is certainly not from the current Rules of Hockey.
*(Many umpires are unable to describe an incident of obstruction – without physical contact – that they would penalise ; they don’t know what it is they should be looking for as a breach of the Rule)
The only difference between the Obstruction Rule we now have and that of 1975, is that now a player in the act of receiving the ball (generally from the his rear, the direction of his own defence) – and shielding it from a marker – who is within playing distance of the ball – while doing so, is given leeway to take the ball into control before moving away with it. i.e. he is not, as he would have been prior to 1993, obstructing immediately an opponent demonstrates the direct path to the ball is blocked by the player in possession of the ball and a tackle attempt is being prevented.
On the other hand, a player who is in controlled possession of the ball, who turns to position his body between the ball and an opponent within playing distance of the ball, to prevent a tackle attempt, is obstructing immediately he does so - or obstructs jf he does not, having so turned to that position, immediately move off with the ball – or pass it away – that is moves away or passes away before an opponent intent on tackling for the ball comes within playing distance of it and attempts to play the ball.
In effect a player may receive the ball, even in a stationary position and is then “permitted to move off with it“, that is move away to put and keep the ball beyond the reach of an opponent – but may not otherwise shield the ball to prevent a tackle attempt. Such shielding frustrates a tackler and greatly increases the possibility of a contact offence.
In practice a receiver is not now required to make a lead run when closely marked to ‘lose’ his marker and make time and space in which to receive the ball, as was generally necessary up until 1992/3, unless he was already in free space. This facility to receive the ball in a protected way enabled the tactical development of the game (particularly the back -pass) and reduced the number of obstruction offences ‘called’, (as well as reducing physical contact by tacklers), but it was not intended to allow the now common stationary ball shielding, ‘turning’ ’crabbing’ and ‘dawdling’ on the ball in blocking positions – by players already in controlled possession of the ball – which so mar the modern game, sometimes even at the top levels.
What has now gone – in two stages, 2001 and 2004 – (and ‘good riddance’ to it) – is the ridiculous ”onus on the tackler” …..” to be in and if necessary to move to a position from which a legitimate tackle may be attempted“ which effectively made obstruction by a ball holder who was shielding the ball in a stationary or near stationary position (usually slowly weaving from side to side), while moving the ball, a near impossibility, because a legitimate tackling position could never be achieved, as continual re-positioning of the ball or body to maintain shielding (i.e. obstruction) prevented it. (That there was an ’onus’ or responsibility on players in possession of the ball not to obstruct an opponent within playing distance of the ball and intent on tackling was not mentioned in this interpretation of the Obstruction Rule). Opponents who could not tackle because they were blocked off from the ball were said in effect not to be obstructed, because they were unable to circumvent the blocking player to play at the ball without physical contact with the ball-holder – but the fact that they were obliged to circumvent a player blocking the direct path to the ball in order to attempt a tackle meant that they were obstructed – a conundrum.
Despite the impossible situation it created, this ‘onus on the tackler’ (but not, strangely, on the player in possession of the ball) is what umpire coaches, who ‘did’ their Rules at the time that that obstruction interpretation was extant, are still passing on - in spite of the complete removal of it from the Rules of Hockey nine years ago. The current obstruction Rule is exactly as it was in 1992/3 (when leeway for a receiving player was added), except for the addition of the 2009 clause (on a ball holder positioning the body between an opponent and the ball).
It’s much easier, however, to umpire and be consistent when obstructive play is ignored, as the necessary judgements, of timing and distance, are often difficult. (To get an idea of the difficulties consider what a ‘pig’s ear’ umpires make of judging 5m, especially from distance and with a foreshorten view, when dealing with the quickly taken self-pass and retreating defenders – which difficulties umpires have ironically have invited on themselves by ‘interpretation’). But what could be more consistent than doing nothing about obstructive play? A great way to achieve ‘Rule change’ and consistency – just ignore the Rule.
It seems that all a new umpire (or a player) has to do to know the Rules these days is to know which deletions are still in fact regarded as being ‘on foot’ and what new interpretations or Guidance inventions have arisen since the last FIH Tournament – and they will be told what these are as and when the information is ‘cascaded’ : gossip rules. What is actually written in the published Rules of Hockey can often be ‘safely’ ignored – and in some areas, such as ball/body contact, dangerous play and obstruction, it generally is.
How often are we to hear the excuse ”No, I agree that is not what it says in the rule book but that is the way I have been coached to umpire.” and why is that?
Field Hockey Rules: Barging; Backing-in; Obstruction; Physical contact; Dangerous play; Injury.
Two incidents from the London Olympic Games.
First the Rule and relevant parts of the embedded Guidance (the part concerning ‘third party’ has been omitted)
9.12 Players must not obstruct an opponent who is attempting to play the ball
Players obstruct if they :
- back into an opponent
– physically interfere with the stick or body of an opponent
– shield the ball from a legitimate tackle with their stick or any part of their body
A player with the ball is permitted to move off with it in any direction except bodily into an opponent or in to a position between the ball and an opponent who is within playing distance of the ball and attempting to play it.
In this incident ball shielding by positioning (turning) between the ball and an opponent who is within playing distance of the ball and attempting to play it; there is also a backing-in offence. (What was the ball holder trying to do?)
Obstructed player hit in the face with a stick while attempting to tackle.
and here ball shielding, again by positioning the body, between a close opponent who was attempting to tackle, and the ball, and also interference with the stick of the same opponent (followed by dangerous play).
Makes one wonder what part of the Rule the umpires concerned did not (do not) understand or, assuming they do understand it (and why not?), why the Rule is not applied? Is it “too difficult” ?
As for the players, neither one with any idea of using stick-work, footwork and speed to elude an opponent when they choose not to pass the ball.
Field Hockey. Not Obstruction while receiving and controlling. Obstruction when turning and backing in while in possession.
This clause: - A stationary player receiving the ball is permitted to face in any directionfrom the Rule Guidance is strange because it is incomplete as well as being written in ‘short-hand’. There is no reason a receiving player or a player already in controlled possession of the ball – be they be moving or stationary – should not be facing in any direction. The clause would be completed by adding the presence of an opponent who is intent on playing the ball and is within playing distance of the ball as it is received.
A receiving player is permitted to receive the ball while facing in any direction even when closely marked by an opponent – this is an exception to the Obstruction Rule. This exception was introduced in 92/93. and was introduced as “A change in interpretation not a change to the Rule” The same words are used to ‘explain’ the current (sic) application of the Obstruction Rule, although the Rule and the embedded Guidance to it has been rewritten since 1992, most notably 2001 (part deleted) in 2004 (complete rewrite) and added to in 2009.
In complete contrast – and this does not now appear to be understood – a player who is already in controlled possession of the ball – so not in the act of receiving and controlling the ball, is NOT permitted to be facing in any direction while an opponent who is within playing distance of the ball is attempting to play the ball.
In general terms the player in possession has to be behind the ball, that is his own goal side of it when an opponent, the opponent’s goal side of the ball, is attempting to play the ball. There is of course a transition between facing the attacker’s goal (the goal of the player in possession) and facing the defender’s goal, it’s not a case of one position or the other, but a player in controlled possession of the ball must endeavour not to position his body between an opponent and the ball in a way that obstructs a tackle attempt – a receiving player is permitted to do so , but only briefly while the ball is brought under control.
In the video the Australian player ‘pushes’ the time allowed to, and perhaps a bit beyond, what should be an acceptable time at that level to receive, control and move away with the ball. The New Zealand player in the second incident demonstrates good technique, there is no ‘dwelling’ on the ball at all. That is how it should be, the purpose of the leeway given is to facilitate receiving without fear of physical contact, not as a means to hold the ball in a stationary position or to ‘dawdle’ on it while ‘blocking off’ an opponent, while waiting for support or a pass option or an opportunity to ‘roll off’ an opponent.
Rule 9.12 Players must not obstruct an opponent who is attempting to play the ball.
Players obstruct if they :
– back into an opponent – physically interfere with the stick or body of an opponent – shield the ball from a legitimate tackle with their stick or any part of their body.
A stationary player receiving the ball is permitted to face in any direction.
A player with the ball is permitted to move off with it in any direction except bodily into an opponent or into a position between the ball and an opponent who is within playing distance of the ball and attempting to play it.
A player who runs in front of or blocks an opponent to stop them legitimately playing or attempting to play the ball is obstructing (this is third party or shadow obstruction). This also applies if an attacker runs across or blocks defenders (including the goalkeeper or player with goalkeeping privileges) when a penalty corner is being taken.
The German player, who approached the opponent’s circle, when already in controlled possession of the ball for a considerable distance, flouted the Obstruction Rule in several ways – all of these:-
Players obstruct if they:
shield the ball from a legitimate tackle with their stick or any part of their body
or back into an opponent
or move bodily into an opponent
or position between the ball and an opponent who is within playing distance of the ball and attempting to play it.
All that is reasonably clearly stated, but for those ‘hung up’ on the word legitimate before the word tackle or what is not said, but is usually ‘understood’, I’ll put the terms less concisely (and in a different order)
It is not legitimate play for a player in possession of the ball to shield the ball from an opponent with their stick or any part of their body, this action may be an obstructive offence.
It is not legitimate play for a player in possession of the ball to position between the ball and an opponent who is within playing distance of the ball and attempting to play it, this action may be an obstructive offence
(The above actions are not obstructive play if the player in possession of the ball is the defender’s goal-side of the defender – unless the stick or leg or hand or arm is used to fend off the stick of the opponent during a tackle attempt made from the side or from behind the player in possession – the ball must be moved beyond reach, not access to it blocked. )
It is not legitimate play for a player in possession of the ball to back into an opponent, this action is a barging offence and an obstructive offence.
It is not legitimate play for a player in possession of the ball to move bodily into an opponent, this action is a barging offence and an obstructive offence.
Because hockey is a non-contact sport, for fairness, a player in possession of the ball is obliged by Rule to permit an opponent a clear path and clear access to the ball at all times and an opponent cannot be hindered or impeded in any way while attempting to tackle for the ball. Individual possession in maintained by moving the ball by means of stick-work, footwork (including spin-turns where appropriate) and foot-speed; team possession is maintained by combining these individual skills with passing movements (including back-passing). A player in possession of the ball who allows an on balance opponent to come within playing reach of the ball reduces her/his immediate playing options i.e. turning on or with the ball is either restricted or impossible but a competent player, moving with the ball in front of the feet and towards the opponent’s goal, cannot obstruct an opponent with his body. Fending off the stick of an opponent as it is moved towards the ball, with the stick a leg or an arm/hand will be an obstructive offence no matter what the orientation of the players to each other or to the goals.
There is an oddity in the wording of the embedded Guidance:-
A stationary player receiving the ball is permitted to face in any direction.
Why only a stationary player? to explain this it is is necessary to go back more than twenty years - to 1992.
Prior to 1992/3 a forward player receiving the ball from the direction of his own defenders would, in order to avoid giving an obstructive offence, have to be either in clear space with no opponent within playing distance of the ball as he received it or he would have to make a lead run towards the ball so that he could take control of it and turn to face opponents before they came within playing distance of the ball. The New Zealand player in the video clip makes a similar kind of move and turn. The change in interpretation, new in 1993 and revolutionary at the time, was that a player in a stationary position could receive the ball even with an opponent close behind him without being immediately guilty of an obstructive offence – as long as having controlled the ball he then moved away with it (from any close or approaching opponent) to take and keep the ball beyond the reach of that opponent. It was unnecessary to explain in the Guidance that a moving player could be facing in any direction – everybody already knew that, it was standard practice.
The changes to Interpretation and application have been so profound since then that today nobody ‘knows that’. Yet it is still possible to hear an umpire declaring “The Rule has not changed only the interpretation has” There have been changes made to the Rule and Guidance, a complete rewrite in 2004 and an additional clause to Guidance concerning a player in possession of the ball in 2009. The changes to interpretation and application however have been profound, going far beyond the ‘revolutionary’ changes made in 1992. Of course if one asks an umpire ”What is the Interpretation?” Why for example was the German player who dribbled the ball to the circle, in the video clip above, not penalised for obstruction- as per the Rule and the embedded Guidance ? It is probable that you will get a blank look and a shrug of the shoulders.The umpire might even sigh and look pained at your ignorance – but you won’t get an answer to that question .
The first section of the above video is what was originally presented by the FIH Umpiring Committee on the Dartfish web-site as a umpire coaching video entitled Obstruction 3 (I believe it is now called Tackles 2). The text of the Obstruction Rule and Rule Guidance is given and then an interpretation of the action as follows:-
Interpretation of the action
The GER team try to pass the ball out of defence. The GER player receives the ball and initially moves it out of the playing distance of the ARG player. When the GER player turns with the ball the ARG player is not actively trying to tackle or play the ball. When the GER player plays the ball over the stick of the ARG player, it runs out of her playing distance for an ARG side-line ball. The contact between the two players sticks is accidental and does not affect play.
and that interpretation is astonishing for what it does not say as much as for what it does. A breakdown of the above interpretation:-
The GER team try to pass the ball out of defence. The GER player receives the ball and initially moves it out of the playing distance of the ARG player. Yes she does, but how that is done is not remarked upon except to say that the GER player turns with the ball. It is not pointed out that she turns – to position her body between an opponent approaching with the intention of tackling for the ball and the ball – and for no other purpose than to shield the ball and prevent that tackle attempt and she does not then move away with the ball.
When the GER player turns with the ball the ARG player is not actively trying to tackle or play the ball. That is debatable, the ARG player is in fact trying hard to reach and play the ball and would probably have succeeded in doing so had the GER player, having turned her back to the ARG player, not stepped over the ARG player’s stick and across her path to block further progress towards the ball.
There is a significant gap in the description of the action after the initial (counterclockwise) turn of the GER player. There is a failure to describe not only the step-over that halted the ARG player’s progress and obstructed her as she closed on the ball, but also a subsequent attempt by the ARG player to go around the GER player to get to the ball with her stick, which was prevented by the GER player side-stepping to her right while facing the base-line and knocking the ARG player’s stick away with her leg – that tackle attempt – and obstruction – certainly took place while the ARG player was within playing distance of the ball, and the obstruction should have been penalised. Having made several side-steps while facing the base-line, to take the play out of the circle, the GER player then rotates (again counterclockwise) and clips the ball from in front of her feet to lift it over stick of the ARG player, by then flat on the ground behind the GER player, and attempts to move past the position of the ARG player following the ball. The ARG player recovered an upright stance in time to avoid the physical contact (and penalty for obstruction) which might otherwise have occurred. To miss any and all obstruction on video review of the incident and to declare that the ARG was “not actively trying to play the ball” appears to be willful blindness. (I have no idea why the word ‘actively’ was inserted. Is it possible to try to carry out a physical action other than actively?)
The interpretation concludes:-
When the GER player plays the ball over the stick of the ARG player, it runs out of her playing distance for an ARG side-line ball. The contact between the two players sticks is accidental and does not affect play. It did have an effect on the play…..but never mind.
The omission of mention of the tackle attempt made, while the ARG player was certainly within playing distance of the ball, is disturbing, but equally disturbing, I think, is the notion that if a turn away with the ball is completed a fraction of a second before an opponent comes within playing reach of the ball the ball holder may then after the opponent has come to within playing reach of the ball , remain stationary or move – her body or the ball or both - to maintain a ball shielding position, as the GER player did, without being in breach of the Obstruction Rule.
A look at the relevant Rule Guidance:-
Players obstruct if they :
– shield the ball from a legitimate tackle with their stick or any part of their body.
A player with the ball is permitted to move off with it in any direction except bodily into an opponent or into a position between the ball and an opponent who is within playing distance of the ball and attempting to play it.
The last clause, if joined with the introductory phrase reads:- A player with the ball is permitted to move off with it in any direction except into a position between the ball and an opponent who is within playing distance of the ball and attempting to play it.
It is clear that a player in possession of the ball can legally turn to interpose the body between the ball and an opponent who is approaching, as long as at the time the turn is made the opponent is not yet within playing reach of the ball. But what is no longer clear – because of “simplification” (which was supposed to give “clarity” to the Rules) – is what the player in possession cannot then do (or has to do), in order to meet the onus not to obstruct an opponent, once that opponent is within playing distance of the ball and demonstrating an intention to play at the ball. The onus (responsibility) not to obstruct is created by: Rule 9.12 Players must not obstruct an opponent who is attempting to play the ball.
“Demonstrating an intention to play at the ball” is a phrase from a previous era. I think it far superior to “attempting to play“.
Having ‘stripped out’ :-
Umpires should be aware of players who are in possession of the ball who shield the ball with body, leg or stick and stand still when under pressure (which disappeared in the 2004 reformat and “simplification and clarification” of the rulebook)we are left with the present Rule Guidance; so we are not given clear direction about the permitted and/or prohibited actions of a player in possession of the ball who has turned away to position his body between an opponent and the ball prior to that opponent getting to within playing distance of it , other than Players obstruct if they shield the ball from a legitimate tackle with their stick or any part of their body – which is rendered useless by various interpretations of the word ‘legitimate’. (In clear and simple Rule Guidance the unnecessary ‘legitimate’ would not be inserted)
Umpires it seems prefer to recall the long deleted (2001) “The onus is on the tackler to be in and if necessary to move to a position from which a legitimate tackle can be attempted” rather than ensuring Rule compliance from players who are in possession of the ball who shield the ball with body, leg or stick and stand still when under pressure (pre 2004 rulebook Rule Interpretations and also the published Umpire Managers Briefing).Which of these two ‘positions’ best reflects Players must not obstruct an opponent who is attempting to play the ball ? I believe it to be the latter.
The practice of ‘crab-walking’ the ball along a side-line or base-line while ‘protecting’ (leading) it with the body, something seen to happen frequently and without penalty now, was also previously specifically prohibited. (That practice developed as a result of “may move away“ and then the pitifully weak “is permitted to move off ” replacing the original “must move away with the ball“) .What has now been allowed to ‘evolve’ is the (clearly illegal) practice of players in possession, in all parts of the field, leading the ball bodily into opponents
as well as the previous, and still prohibited, practices of ball receivers backing into opponents while turning with the ball and ‘rolling off’ them. These practices are often referred to as “protecting the ball” - rather than ‘shielding’ - and treated as if changing the words used to describe an action changes the action.
Positioning to make a (legitimate ??) tackle is I think best dealt with by Rule 9.13 Players must not tackle unless in a position to play the ball without body contact. It should be noted that a player who is not in a position to tackle without body contact may be in (have been put in) that position because he has been obstructed while approaching a player turning while in possession of the ball. There is a balance to be maintained between a tackler not tackling with the use of physical contact and a player in possession of the ball not (deliberately) shielding the ball in order to prevent a tackle attempt.
The following clip also produced by the FIH Umpiring Committee has a contrasting interpretation and outcome to the one shown above.
Interpretation.
The first ARG player runs at the ENG defence and passes the ball to the second ARG player. She dribbles the ball towards the circle. As she nears it, she turns her body to shields the ball prevent the ENG defender from being able to tackler her. The umpire awards a free hit to ENG as a result of this shielding of the ball from a legitimate tackle by the ENG defender.
That interpretation is in line with what is given in the Rules of Hockey. Shielding the ball to prevent a tackle attempt is obstruction.
FIH Umpiring Committee umpire coaching video entitled Obstruction 6 (or Obstruction 2_es)
The givenInterpretation:- The ARG attacker enters the 23 meters areas and just before she reaches the edge of the circle plays a pass which is intended for her team mate. The GER defender tries to intercept the pass, but the ball deflects off her stick. The GER defender regains control of the ball. The second ARG attacker tries to claim that she is being obstructed. The Umpire allows play to continue, because at no point did the second ARG attacker ever legitimately attempt to play the ball.
Does one laugh or cry? Obstruction of this sort would be penalised in even in a physical contact game such as Soccer and in both Rugby Codes. The above video is not about a player in possession shielding the ball from a tackle attempt but shows a team-mate of the player in possession of the ball preventing an opponent from even approaching to within playing distance of the ball – a third party obstruction.( and also a physical contact offence)
Whoever wrote the ‘interpretation of the action’ didn’t (doesn’t ?) know the difference (and again leaves out the significant part of the action). The claim that the ARG player in the first clip in this article did not make an attempt to tackle loses credibility, as does the claim (that has been made) that these videos are “definitive” (will be used in preference to the written Rules of Hockey). It would be a good thing to have definitive videos of aspects of the Rule Guidance produced by the FIH Rules Committee, to supplement the written Rules, but we are a very long way from that at present.
An opinion by Dr. Ric Charlesworth, Australian Men’s Field Hockey Coach, given to Fieldhockey.com
“Hockey has never been so attractive as it is now. It flows and is skillful. Then why have we introduced a new rule that does not reward skill? No longer do you need to get into the semi circle to score. After finding a solution to the bash into the circle we are now encouraging it again!
After removing the CHIP, which blighted the game in the 80s, we are again encouraging the aerial ball, which will be the preferred way to travel up the field. Strange decision indeed!
It gets worse.”
Dr. Charlesworth then goes on, at greater length, to criticize International Competition structures and qualification from the World League Championships. He concludes:-
“Surely it is time that some rigour was brought to the integrity and design of our competition structures. While we have largely improved the rules (notwithstanding the latest changes) why are we going backward in rewarding consistent quality in our new competition?”
I have no comment to make about competition structures but, although I agree wholeheartedly with his observations about the Own Goal, I find some of his statements about hockey and the Rules of Hockey at odds with my own experience and views.
“Hockey has never been so attractive as it is now. It flows and is skillful”
“..we are again encouraging the aerial ball, which will be the preferred way to travel up the field. Strange decision indeed! “
“While we have largely improved the rules (notwithstanding the latest changes)…”
The first and third statements are similar, so to I’ll comment on the second one first.
I assume he is referring to the introduction of the facility to lift the ball directly from a free with any stroke except a hit, which was suggested as a safety measure (preventing a scoop after a free being made past a charging opponent who is trying to tackle before the scoop is made, intercept it or cause the scooper to ‘fluff’ it) it also has the tactical advantage of not requiring two players close to the ball if, immediately the free is taken, it is decided that a scoop will be made (similar to the Self Pass not needing a passer and a receiver).
It is also possible to make a scoop immediately the ball has been moved after a Self-Pass is taken, but the criticism only comes now, so I assume that that aspect is not the problem, as the Self-Pass has been in operation within the FIH since 2009. Comparing the facility to lift the ball directly from a free, using a flick or a scoop, with the chip-hit in open play is simply silly and degrades the valid criticism of the introduction of the Own Goal.
The criticism I make of the Direct Lift, as it has now been presented by the FIH is that lifting the ball directly into the circle from outside the opponent’s 23m line is permitted, I feel that a raised hit pass into the circle ought to be prohibited, and a raised pass, of any description, from a free ball directly into the circle, ought to be banned. Dr Charlesworth misses the point of the lifted ball into the circle and talks instead ofa preferred way to travel up the field.That is strange as a Direct Lift only possibly comes into operation after a free ball has been awarded, not at all a preferred way to play the ball up the field, and it makes no difference whatsoever to the making of scoops in open play – which will continue to be made exactly as before the Direct Lift was introduced.
“Hockey has never been so attractive as it is now. It flows and is skillful”
“While we have largely improved the rules”
I disagree strongly with both those statements and I wonder who the “we” is who have largely improved the Rules. The application of the rules has certainly not improved, I can’t recall a time when the Rules of Hockey in regard to Conduct of Play were more ignored or contradicted in ‘practice’.
The failure to apply the Rule on ball shielding, for example, at times (unfairly) facilitates ‘flow’, at other times ‘flow’ is ‘clogged’ in a corner of the pitch or up against a side-line until a penalty is awarded (usually in favour of the player causing the obstruction as frustrated opponents make physical contact either accidentally, or on purpose if time is precious to them, to get things moving again) and the game slows or comes to a complete halt. The failure to prevent deliberate ball shielding also leads to other instances of physical contact – again usually from the player who is shielding the ball – who is seldom penalised for it.
Here is a small selection of examples of what is apparently seen as attractive hockey
.
What Rules have been improved? The Self Pass appears to be generally regarded as ‘a good thing’ despite being ‘mauled’ by a number absurd 5m restrictions – which leave it much less ‘a good thing’ than it should be. I don’t regard the ban on playing a free ball awarded in the opponents 23m area into the circle, as an improvement (a ban on any raising of the ball into the circle with a hit , in any phase of play, would be an improvement ). What other changes have there been in the last ten years that might be viewed as improvements ? The largely ignored ban on raising the ball intentionally with a hit ? What other changes to the Rules have there been at all in the last ten years?
The perception that the FIH HRB were too frequently or continually changing the Rules, and that the FIH Rules Committee continue to do so, is utterly false. In fact there have been few changes to the RULES since 2003 and even fewer improvements. The evolution of ‘practice’ and ‘interpretation’ is another matter entirely – and there have been no improvements there.
The call for intellectual rigour and common sense I can empathise with, but that call must apply as much to the framing and application of the Rules of Hockey as it does to competitions structures. The method of qualification from events such as the World League Championship seems, however, to be the main point in Dr. Charleswoth’s comment.
International competition structures don’t directly impinge on around 98% of participants in hockey, while the Rules of Conduct of Play, and the application of them, involves all participants. The Rules appear to have been mentioned just to grab the attention of a wider audience, the vast majority of whom are not in any way effected by the structure of the World League Championship – a direct letter to the organizing committee of that competition, with suggestions for improvement, might have been the more appropriate course of action – these people can’t be embarrassed into doing things correctly by publishing on the Internet, many of them take the fact of their appointment as a sign of infallibility.
The video clips above showed some examples of slowing of the game by obstructive play. Here are some that show the much vaunted ‘flow’ in action.
This last one starts with a coaching video on obstruction produced by the Australian HA in 2004.
‘Clueless’ would be an apt description. In a similar way to ‘finding a foot’ of a defender in the opponent’s circle to ‘win’ a penalty corner, obstructive play – which is clearly contrary to Rule – is now regarded not only as ‘acceptable’ but as a skill to be acquired by good players. In both cases umpires (are told to) go along with these developments that have nothing at all to do with improvements to Rules or even compliance with Rules.
.
Link to Index of Ruleshttp://wp.me/p3tNmd-3
Here is a suggestion for the Obstruction Rule which contains the current criteria for the offence of ball shielding by a player in possession of the ball. I have not included ‘third party’ obstruction in this suggestion.
I have substituted “demonstrating an intent to play the ball” ( a previous wording) for “attempting to play the ball” because of the way “attempting to play the ball” has been interpreted as “succeeding in playing the ball” – what appear to me to be attempts to play the ball do not seem to be recognized ‘in practice’ or in the coaching videos offered – seehttp://wp.me/pKOEk-Og
The only addition to current Rule I have included is to put in writing, is a long existing convention, that a player in possession of the ball cannot obstruct an opponent with his body if the opponent is behind the play, that is, if the opponent is not the opponent’s own goal-side of the ball. An opponent who is ‘behind the play’ (not his own goal-side of the ball) can still be obstructed by a movement of the stick or leg or arm of the ball holder to fend off a tackle attempt, but it is generally true that opponents ‘behind the play’ cannot be obstructed by the body of a ball holder, a dribbling player who cuts across the path of an opponent coming from the dribbler’s goal-side of the ball is not considered to have obstructed that opponent.
. Rule 9.12 Players must not use the body or stick to shield the ball from an opponent to prevent that opponent from playing the ball.
A player in possession of the ball obstructs an opponent with his body or stick when:-
the ball is within playing distance of the opponent and the opponent is own goal-side of the ball and
the opponent demonstrates an intent to play at the ball and
the only reason the opponent cannot play the ball is because the direct path to it is obstructed by the body or stick of the player in possession of the ball – that is, the ball is shielded from the opponent so as to prevent a legal attempt at a tackle.
Obstruction is therefore an offence that is forced by an opponent when that opponent is within playing distance of the ball and demonstrating an intention to play at the ball.
An obstruction has to be forced, by trying to play at the ball, but cannot be intentionally ‘manufactured’. A player in possession of the ball cannot, for example, play the ball to the far side of an opponent, past or between the opponent’s feet, and then immediately run into that opponent claiming the path to the ball is obstructed, such a player is obliged to go around (or attempt to go around) an opponent by-passed with the ball in the way described.
A player also obstructs if there is any interference with the stick or body of an opponent while the opponent is attempting to play at the ball.
An opponent ‘behind the play’ can be obstructed by a movement of the stick or leg or arm/hand of the ball holder to fend off a tackle attempt made from the front or either side or from behind the ball holder’s position.
The receiving player. A player receiving the ball is permitted to be facing in any direction, but if closely marked by an opponent while receiving, must pass the ball away immediately it is under control or, as it is controlled, move away with it at a speed that will put and keep it beyond the playing reach of the opponent : unlessa positionfacing the closing opponent is achieved by the receiving player before the opponent is in a position to execute a tackle i.e. the tackler is in a position of balance to tackle and within playing distance of the ball and demonstrating an intention to play at the ball.
This is part of the current Rule Guidance:- A player with the ball is permitted to move off with it in any direction except bodily into an opponent or into a position between the ball and an opponent who is within playing distance of the ball and attempting to play it. But“is permitted to move off with it in any direction” is not directive or prohibitive as the previous “must move off with the ball or pass it” was: the previous clearly directive wording is therefore restored in this proposal – but with “move away” substituted for “move off”.
A player in possession of the ball who is faced with an ‘on-side’ opponent who is within playing distance of the ball and who is attempting to play at it, must not turn with the ball to position between the ball and the opponent to block the opponent’s direct path to the ball.
A player in possession of the ball who turns with it to position the body between an opponent and the ball must not allow that opponent to close to within playing distance of the ball while his or her body is still positioned between the ball and the opponent, that may be obstructive play. Such a turning player is notallowed the leeway given to a player in the act of receiving the ball, that is the time given to a receiver to receive and control the ball, before an obstructive offence may be forced. A player turning away from an opponent while in possession of the ball in a way that places the body between the opponent and the ball mustmaintain the ball at a distance beyond the playing reach of an opponent who is demonstrating an intent to play at the ball or turn while that opponent is not in a position to tackle, the opponent being, for example, off-balance and/or reaching or moving in the wrong direction to do attempt a tackle.
A player with possession of the ball is permitted to move off with it in any direction but must not move bodily into an opponent in a way that causes body contact or obliges the opponent to give way to avoid contact.
A tackle cannot be attempted from a position from which physical contact will result (Rule 9.13). Within the criteria given above, an Obstruction offence occurs when a player in possession of the ball, when moving or stationary, positions the body in relation to the ball or the ball in relation to the body, so that the execution of a legal tackle by an ‘onside’ opponent becomes impossible without that opponent having to attempt to move around the body of the player in possession, to get to the ball . Being obliged to move around an opponent in possession to reach the ball is to be obstructed. Being prevented from succeeding in moving around the player in possession of the ball by further ball or body movement to maintain ball-shielding is further obstructive play.
The following, previously given in Advice for Umpires in the back of rule-books prior to 2004, to be restored as Rule Guidance
Umpires should be aware of players who are in possession of the ball who: • back into an opponent; • turn with the ball from a ball shielding position and try to barge past an opponent; • turn away to shield the ball from an opponent without moving away to put and keep the ball beyond the playing reach of that opponent. • move bodily into the position occupied by an opponent while leading the ball • shield the ball with body, leg or stick and stand still when under pressure; • drag the ball near their back foot when moving down the side-line or along the back-line; • shield the ball by moving the leg or the stick to prevent a legitimate tackle.
The above screed is complicated – and so repetitive in an attempt to provide clarity – but still not the length of the PIT Interpretation of the Obstruction Rule that was finally removed completely in 2004 (part was deleted in 2001). As the Obstruction Rule is probably the most difficult of the Rules to describe fully and adequately without causing confusion the above suggestion will need further work.
I think it a reasonable starting point. Similar examination of the criterion for a dangerously played ball and for a ball/body contact offence – to mention the two most contentious other areas of Rule application – is needed. This would not lead to anything like “a 300 page rule book” as has been claimed by those content to muddle along with the present ambiguities and inconsistencies (insist on applying only their own interpretations – which usually means ignoring the offence altogether).
Where we need to ‘get to’ is to a situation where all ball shielding that prevents the possibility of a legal tackle being attempted is penalised as an offence and have – instead of a situation where possession of the ball is retained by physical blocking and obstructing – one where possession is maintained by passing and dribbling to elude tackles by opponents. The encouragement of speed and skill in moving the ball or moving with the ball to take and keep it beyond the reach of a challenging player in place of the stationary or near stationary ball shielding and body blocking that has ‘evolved’ despite the written Rule.
Without the facility to shield the ball to prevent a tackle players have no option but to develop moving, passing and stick-work skills : with the facility to shield the ball they don’t need to bother to do so and the game as a spectacle suffers and so do movement and stickwork skills.
A recent example of the umpiring of obstructive play. It’s not seen at all. The umpire appears to have no awareness of the Obstruction Rule.
These comments were reported before the Olympics as having been made by the Australia women’s field hockey coach Adam Commens.
Edited 6th May 2013
Olympics-Australia hockey coach unhappy with umpiring standards
Australia women’s hockey coach Adam Commens has criticised umpiring standards less than two months ahead of the Olympics, saying officials are not good enough and struggle with the pace of the game.
Speaking after Australia lost 4-1 to Olympic champions Netherlands in the final of an invitational event in London, Commens said umpires were doing their best but finding it hard to implement the International Hockey Federation’s (FIH) rules.
“The FIH have asked for different interpretations on aerial balls, tackles, the five-metre rule and on masks and that makes it really difficult for umpires,” Commens told the Australian Associated Press news agency after Sunday’s loss.
“We are thinking one thing and they (the umpires) are thinking something else.
“They are struggling with the speed of the game and the skill levels. They are doing their best but, unfortunately, it’s not good enough.”
I agree with the last reported remark above and with “…..finding it hard to implement the International Hockey Federation’s (FIH) rules” but I would not have highlighted the particular Rule areas Commens does, except the various 5m requirements that were imposed in 2009 particularly those concerning the self-pass, and I think umpires have difficulty more because of the way they are coached than because of a lack of ability or the speed of the game. His criticisms may be valid, it is hard to know because he does not really tell us what they are.“Tackles” may refer to the difficulty players have in tackling when deliberately obstructed, I don’t know.
I put the Obstruction Rule ‘front and centre’ of the current failings in umpiring, closely followed by application of the ball/body contact Rule and the rules and guidance concerning the dangerously played ball, particularly the raised shot at goal.
Many players and indeed many umpires appear to be unaware that there is an Obstruction Rule unique to field hockey: the possibility of an obstructive offence occurring without there being any physical contact at all. Most umpires would be hard pressed to describe an instance of ball shielding without physical contact with an opponent that they would penalise in one direction or the other. It is therefore necessary to describe and, if possible, to define, obstructive play within the Rules.
How is a player obstructed?
There are two kinds of obstruction. 1) Third party, which I believe is generally well understood (despite the coaching video produced by the Umpiring Committee on the Dartfish website) and
2) The shielding of the ball by a player in possession of it to prevent an opponent attempting a tackle. It is this aspect of the Obstruction Rule where problems have been ‘manufactured’ by ‘interpretation’.
The Rule itself is straightforward:-
9.12 Players must not obstruct an opponent who is attempting to play the ball.
Shielding the ball with the body prevents a direct tackle attempt because it is not legal (legitimate) for any player to attempt to play the ball if by doing so s/he will make physical contact with an opponent:-
9.13 Players must not tackle unless in a position to play the ball without body contact.
There is presently no balance in the way these two complementary Rules are applied – it’s unfair.
If a player in possession of the ball positions their body between the ball and an opponent then the direct path to the ball is obstructed. The concept is simple enough, so why isn’t it working out in practice? The simple answer is because umpires did not and do not want to be bothered with it because decisions concerning obstructive play require judgement of distances and of timing. These can be difficult decisions and therefore can be inconsistent: it is easier to consistently ignore obstructive offences – and for Umpire Coaches consistency seems to be everything .
After a short period players ceased to expect ball-shielding to be penalised and then came to look on it as a skill to be developed (the same kind of path that forcing a foot contact and expecting the award of a penalty against the player hit with the ball has taken) and some players have become very skilful at shielding the ball with their body to prevent (make it impossible) for an opponent to attempt a legal tackle.
Many players when in possession of the ball now use dribbling techniques designed to force an opponent to move away from them to avoid a collision of bodies, they lead the ball, and full ‘back-to-opponent ‘holding off’ or ‘protecting the ball’ – terms commonly used by sports photographers ,who capture the stationary result – is now universally “accepted” i.e. not penalised as obstructive play.
In a few years we have moved from not penalising the more difficult instances of obstructive play – difficult because of uncertainty about the distance from ball of a tackler and timing of a turn with the ball by the ball holder – to ignoring blatant stationary blocking which would certainly have been penalised without hesitation previously. The ‘door was opened’ and then ‘the wind took it off its hinges’.
Umpires grew either lax or confused or both, following changes to Rule Guidance/Interpretation in the early and mid 1990′s, and players and coaches took full advantage of the uncertainty created by umpires who came to use a version of obstruction akin to that seen in soccer.
By the time the nonsense interpretation (the onus on the tackler to be in and if necessary to move to ..etc..) had been completely removed from the rulebook with the rewrite in 2004, ball shielding as an offence had ‘in practice’ ceased to exist. The Rule was unchanged during the entire period but the Guidance to it was not merely interpreted differently, it was gradually – and now is completely - ignored and became irrelevant; umpires followed what other umpires did or did as they were told to do (which was often to ignore the fact that the PIT interpretation was deleted post 2004 – just as they later ignored the deletion of the gains benefit exception clause to the ball/body contact Rule). Even the addition of a Rule Guidance clause in 2009 (in bold below), aimed specifically at turning to interpose the body between an opponent and the ball by the player in possession of the ball, is being ignored.
Players obstruct if they :
– back into an opponent – physically interfere with the stick or body of an opponent – shield the ball from a legitimate tackle with their stick or any part of their body.
A player with the ball is permitted to move off with it in any direction except bodily into an opponent or into a position between the ball and an opponent who is within playing distance of the ball and attempting to play it.
Now only obstruction that also involves physical contact is generally penalised and even that is being ‘eroded’ if it is the ball holder who initiates the contact.
It’s happening because it is easier to umpire without bothering with an Obstruction Rule and it is easier for a player to retain possession of the ball if it can be shielded from an opponent. But is it good for hockey? The answer is ‘No’. Why not? Because it is leading – has led - to a physical contact game. It diminishes the previous emphasis on ‘stick-work’ skills – without shielding of the ball – and it results in deliberate time-wasting by ball holding in corners and against side-lines in preference to moving the ball or moving with the ball, which leads eventually to a decline in these skills – obstructive play is often substituted for stick-work and passing skills .
The development of improved synthetic surfaces and synthetic sticks and also better sports science, has disguised a general fall in skill level because these things, truer surfaces, availability of pitches for training at all times and weathers and lighter stronger sticks, have enabled the development of fitness and stick skills. The game has got faster, Umpires Coaches and the Rules are not coping with this and this is most apparent in the application (or more accurately the non-application) of the Obstruction Rule.
Without any apparent change to this Rule and Rule Guidance/Interpretation since 1993, as the 2004 rewrite was very nearly identical, (there is only one significant difference – “must” being replaced with “is permitted to”) there has been a profound change in application. A player of that earlier time – which is very recent in the long history of the game – would not now, were he to see it, be able to reconcile the current Rule application with the 1992 application.
Younger people may (do) ‘fall over laughing’ at the idea that a Rule application or interpretation, without a change of word meaning, could or should remain unchanged for twenty years, but then they will insist that some Rules which have been in place for a hundred or even a hundred and fifty years, ‘back-sticks’ for example, remain unchanged. Technical developments and safety issues aside, there is no good reason why Rules should change. Laziness and incompetence certainly aren’t in any case good excuses to allow changes to Rule application to occur.
Alternative wording for the Obstruction Rule can be suggested and have done that in another article, (see http://wp.me/pKOEk-Es) but the real problem is one of attitude. If players and umpires are unconvinced that an Obstruction Rule is necessary or have been convinced by others that it is detrimental to a ‘flowing’ game, then no amount of juggling with the wording of the Rule and Rule Guidance will persuade them to accept it.
I wonder how Commens expects umpires to respond to his remarks.
*****************************************
The comments from Commens were picked up on an Internet hockey forum and in reply to a poster who wrote that umpires ought to be following what was given in the Rules of Hockey this was posted:-
I disagree. If we stick with the letter-of-the-rule approach, like you appear to be suggesting, we will either have to get several new rule books per year, or have two yearly sudden increases in skill as each new rule book comes out and umpires suddenly have to change how a rule is blown and thus where the sport is progressing to. Similarly, rule books will be about 300 pages thicker so that they actually cover every eventuality that can arise to allow us to umpire to the letter of the rule for every single thing that happens in a match.
The current trickle-down approach is far more organic and natural – a team starts doing something the FIH does/doesn’t like, and umpiring modifies slightly to reward this new good skill/prevent the bad skill. This organic evolution of the game cannot be codified regularly for the reasons outlines above, which is why we need to maintain the current evolution of interpretation we see at international levels. If a team cannot or will not adapt to the adapting interpretations or want to stick to old interpretations or interpretations that are simply counter to what the FIH umpires are doing, then it is their problem IMO, and they shouldn’t complain.
What was that again? If a team cannot or will not adapt to the adapting interpretations (the inventions of umpires which often ignore or conflict with the Rules of Hockey published by the FIH Rules Committee)or want to stick to old interpretations or interpretationsthat are simply counter to what the FIH umpires are doing, (which is often contrary to what is given in the Rules of Hockey) then it is their problem IMO, and they shouldn’t complain.
That is the kind of arrogant attitude and betrayal of a position of trust that leaves players and team coaches speechless or spluttering with anger and indignation. The remarks about the possibility of 300 page rulebook and an increase in the number of rulebook issues are silly and disingenuous. The evolution of the game, ‘organic’ or not, is not and should not be in the control of umpires. Umpires are on the pitch to apply as fairly as possible the published Rules of Hockey that they and all other participants are expected to know and to observe; if they use their authority on the pitch during a match to do otherwise there is every reason to complain. Umpires should not be a pernicious or subversive influence while doing their appointed task any more than they should, for example, be coaching players during a match. They can write what they wish on Internet forums, but it is to be hoped that note is taken of what they write and they are rebuked, retrained, downgraded or removed entirely from umpiring if they allow personal views, contrary to the published Rules of Hockey, ‘colour’ their decisions.
******************************************
Posted to an Internet hockey forum by an NPHL umpire 18th. June 2012
“Just to add to (sic) the point that FIH-level umpires “are accountable for every call [they] make and when [they] don’t do it “right”, [they] pay for it” and that “The lead is not given by senior umpires, the lead is given by the people we answer to”, here is the appointments list for all FIH level games and tournaments in 2102, as it currently stands.You will notice, on glancing over it, that every tournament that has 4 or more participating teams has an umpire manager appointed to it, or in some cases, more than one. You will also notice that alongside every single umpire manager’s name in the column headed ‘Appointed By’ it says ‘FIH”. Yes, that’s right, the FIH appoint every single umpire manager to every single FIH-level tournament.So, those people that are holding Keely and her colleagues to account, are, in turn, being held to account by the FIH, as it is they who appoint them. One assumes, therefore, that if the UMs and umpires continue to be appointed by the FIH then they must be doing what the FIH want. I’ve made this point many times over the years on several different forums and for some reason there are still a handful of people who think that UMs and senior umpires are somehow subverting the game by using interpretations that are in some way contrary to what the FIH wants.I just don’t understand the persistence with which they stick to this view despite the clear evidence that it simply cannot be true.”
*****************************************
As usual this umpire missed the point entirely and, because I know he is not stupid, he must be assumed to have done so deliberately, disingenuously.
The official Rules of Hockey are contained within a published booklet called the Rules of Hockey and also on the FIH wed-site. Variations to those rules, applicable only at International Tournament Level are published in Tournament Regulations. There are no Tournament Regulations pertaining to Dangerous play, Obstruction, or the ball/body contact Rule; in fact the Tournament Rule Variations are very limited in scope and impact on Rules pertaining to Conduct of Play, they refer at present only to penalties and to substitution of players.
When, as is the case, umpires can be seen to regularly apply the Rules in a way that is at variance with the published Rules of Hockey – in some cases not apply Rule at all, in others apply an interpretation that is obviously the opposite to what is given in Rule Guidance - it is self-evident that the people who are supposed to be holding umpires to account for their performance in Rule application, are themselves flouting the Rules of Hockey and therefore the wishes of the FIH as given in the rulebook.
The best description of what should be the situation, other than a reading of the Rules of Hockey and Tournament Regulations , that I can offer from “the FIH“, was contained in the Preface of the Rules of Hockey of 2003.
RULES INTERPRETATIONS In the past in addition to the Rules Interpretations included in the Rules Book, briefing papers have occasionally been prepared primarily for umpires at international tournaments. However, we all play the game by the same set of Rules so interpretations in the Rules Book should be as complete as possible. Additional papers should be unnecessary. Accordingly, Appendix B (Rules Interpretations) in this 2003 edition has been significantly revised. It now incorporates the other briefing papers referred to above. At the same time the layout and some parts of the text have been simplified. Everyone is encouraged to read the full revised text of Appendix B.
There was a reformatting of the rulebook in 2004 (page size) and the whole thing was rewritten at the same time. (I think of the result as an act of vandalism). Much that was necessary and useful to players and coaches was stripped out in the name of ‘simplification and clarification’. Rules Interpretations from the back of the book (Appendix B) were combined with Guidance for the Rules of Hockey which had previously been positioned on the page opposite each relevant Rule: both of these were much reduced. The combination of Interpretation and Guidance was a good thing because there had been some conflicts between them, as was the positioning of the reformatted Rule Guidance beneath the Rule it was associated with, but there is no reason to suppose that ‘overnight’ the FIH had decided to do the opposite to what was declared in the statement issued in the Preface of the previous rulebook.
Subsequently the UMBs, which had been on the point of being subsumed into the Rules of Hockey (as they should be) took on a new ‘life’, much supplemented by verbal briefings, and Rule ‘interpretation’ took on an ‘organic character ‘ (to adopt very appropriate term from another post in the forum thread). Simply put, some people have taken on the role of the FIH Rules Committee. If this is what the FIH (the Executive) wants then the FIH Rules Committee should be disbanded. If the FIH Rules Committee is to remain and to be solely responsible for the Rules of Hockey (as it is) then others must allow them to do their task – not contradict them at every turn and then pretend that this is what “the FIH” wants.
The question is “Do we need a rulebook and a published set of Rules or are we content to allow umpires to decide amongst themselves what the Rules should be and how to apply them?” We cannot have both situations. It comes to that choice because umpires (Umpire Managers, Umpire Coaches) have demonstrated repeatedly that they are not prepared to follow what is given in the Rules of Hockey in a significant number of important areas, and some, who endorsed the post, that contained this :- “If a team cannot or will not adapt to the adapting interpretations or want to stick to old interpretations or interpretations that are simply counter to what the FIH umpires are doing, then it is their problem IMO, and they shouldn’t complain.“ believe players and team coaches have no right to complainabout that. These same umpires pretend to have the interests of players ‘at heart’. Their primary motivations however appears to be making umpiring easy and self-aggrandizement.
I rewrite the quoted sentence as I believe it should be put.If any participants or officials cannot or will not adapt to the current Rules and Rules Guidance or want to stick to old interpretations or introduce new interpretations that are simply counter to the Rules of Hockey, then that is a problem and they should lobby the FIH Rules Committee for change, giving a good reason for change and offering alternatives for consideration – but in the meantime must continue to apply the Rules and Rule Guidance as given by the FIH Rules Committee.
I have disagreed strongly with those umpires or groups of umpires who do what they want to do and insist it is what “the FIH” wants, and I will continue to do so. No matter how widespread an umpiring practice is, if it contradicts or is not compliant with what is written in the Rules of Hockey it is contrary to the Rules of Hockey.
I am not entirely sympathetic to the moans of International team coaches either: another Australian coach was recently critical of the decision making of his players because they were shooting at the goal instead of forcing a penalty corner. Such comments display a woeful ignorance of the Rules of the game, an ignorance that is created and fostered by this attitude. If a team cannot or will not adapt to the adapting interpretations or want to stick to old interpretations or interpretations that are simply counter to what the FIH umpires are doing, then it is their problem IMO, and they shouldn’t complain. but such comments from coaches also shows a willingness to ‘bend’ to strange interpretation if it suites them – and they are certainly not above applying what pressure they can to have umpires apply some Rules very strictly e.g. ball/body contact, and ignore others, e.g. forcing. A forced foot/ball contact is not an offence by the player hit with the ball (and forcing a contact is now considered not an offence only because umpires would not apply the ‘forcing’ Rule when it was an offence, in the same way that they presently do not enforce, for example, ball shielding offences or intentional raising of the ball with a hit in instances where a shot at the goal is not being taken). It is only for the sake of their own consistency - in direct conflict with the given Rule Guidance about contact offences – that umpires have made such unintentional contact an offence (by for example invoking the long deleted ‘Gained benefit‘ or the invention “Disadvantaged opponents” or by pointing to the Rule in isolation and ignoring the instructions given in Guidance concerning application of the Rule.) . Who is at fault, the coach or the umpire ? Clearly both ought to be following the published Rules of Hockey and there should be no expectation of or demand for ’interpretation’ that is obviously contrary to what the FIH Rules Committee have provided in Rule Guidance.
It has to be agreed that many of the Rules need amendment, some Rules should be deleted and there is need for some new ones, but this should not be done by “adapting interpretations” ofexistingRules : there is an established procedure for Rule change that must be followed, ‘the FIH’ have stipulated that in writing.
This is a post made on Saturday 2nd May 2012 on an Internet field hockey forum. The premise made in it and the responses to it, which included contributions from an umpire coach and an International umpire would be astonishing if they were not so common that they are now considered ‘accepted’.
(click on picture for clearer image)
What is the problem? It is the assertion by the poster and the acceptance by others (who do know better but act as if they don’t) that there can be no question that an accidental foot/ball contact can be anything but a penalty corner. The basic error, the penalising of the accidental foot contact, was ignored (or perhaps not even noticed so ‘accepted’ is it) and there was discussion of the timing issue, which was in the circumstances irrelevant – a case of ‘not seeing the wood for the trees’.
The problem is, as usual, that umpires are ignoring the Rule Guidance given with the Rule in the Rules of Hockey. Here are the relevant clauses of the Rule Guidance.
It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player. The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball or if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way.
This clause;- It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player. – is directly contradicted by the assumption made in the post that an accidental ball/body contact is an offence. The rest of the Rule Guidance describes circumstances in which ball/body contact may be an offence. The Rule Guidance is poorly written but not ambiguous, for an offence to occur there has to be intent to make contact with the ball with the body.
Why are umpires being coached differently?
The ‘official’ line – that is from the umpire coaches and umpires themselves – as there isn’t an official line that contradicts the Rule Guidance – seems to be that it is consistent to always regard all ball/body contact as an offence . This is the ‘accepted’ course (the easy one). Penalty is then always applied against the player hit with the ball when there is a ball/body contact except when the award of a penalty would be less of an advantage to opponents than allowing play to continue. So a correct (in compliance with Rule) or fair decision is actually irrelevant as long as all such incidents are treated in the same way, that is irrespective of intent (and even when the ball body contact is obviously deliberately forced by an opponent).
This ‘line’ is followed up with 1) “It is what players expect” – Well yes it would be, if ball/body contact is always seen by umpires as an offence, umpires create such expectation.
and
2) It is what ‘the FIH’ want. This is an obviously untrue, what ‘the FIH’ want is set out in the Rules of Hockey which have the approval of the FIH Executive, the supreme authority.
So why do umpires who don’t apply the Rules according to the given Rules Guidance get appointed to matches?
I don’t know, maybe it is because umpires appoint umpires and the ‘system’ is self-perpetuating. There is certainly no effort being made to correct such anomalies of interpretation and application, in fact they increase year on year (which creates the perception among players and spectators that the Rules and Rule Guidance are being changed), there is for example additional (sic)’Rule Guidance’ in the Umpire Managers Briefing for Umpires at FIH Tournaments (UMB), in the Free Hit section this year (2011-13) , which does not appear in the Rules of Hockey – i.e. it is not actually Rule Guidance.
The Obstruction Rule has ‘lost’ ball shielding to prevent a tackle as an offence and the possibility of dangerous play, when an ‘on target’ shot at goal is made, has been ‘lost’ (i.e. is ignored). The Obstruction Rule is still in the rulebook and ‘legitimate evasive action’ still defines a dangerously played ball but, as with intention in relation to ball/body contact, these Rules and Rule Guidance are generally just ignoredand this has become ‘accepted’.
A novice umpire joining the ranks of the umpiring fraternity finds herself or himself in much the same position as a recruit to a police force that is corrupt. The novice, on discovering this, has no idea how far up the line of command the corruption extends, but is certain that it extends beyond her/his own locality. What are the choices? 1) Leave the force and forget it. 2) Leave the force and try to fight what is happening from the outside. 3) Try to fight the system from the inside as a practicing umpire. 4) Go along with what is happening – and even preach it to get promotion.
Too many would be umpires, who become disenchanted when they realize what has happened and is happening, take the first course. Too many take the last.
Since the retirement of the late George Croft as Hon. Sec. of the Hockey Rules Board, the game has been changed beyond recognition, by which I mean that some of the Rules and Rule Guidance to which the game is supposedly played are no longer recognized, there is sometimes ‘lip service’ to the existence of them, but they are no longer applied as written and certainly not as intended – or even as given in the last amendments published by the HRB in 2009 or the FIH Rules Committee in 2011.
The first of them is of course the Rule concerning the playing of the ball in a dangerous way.
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. The penalty is awarded where the action causing the danger took place.
Added to Rule 9.8 is this from Rule 9.9. which is the Rule on intentional raising of the ball with a hit.
A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous.
and then this from the Rules concerning the penalty corner.
13.3.l. for second and subsequent hits at the goal and for flicks, deflections and scoops, it is permitted to raise the ball to any height but this must not be dangerous
if a defender is within five metres of the first shot at goal during the taking of a penalty corner and is struck by the ball below the knee, another penalty corner must be awarded or is struck on or above the knee in a normal stance, the shot is judged to be dangerous and a free hit must be awarded to the defending team.
From the above Rule clauses two conclusions have apparently (because they are common practice) been arrived at. 1) It will never be considered dangerous play to propel a ball at a (standing) opponent at below knee height. 2) An ‘on-target’ shot at the goal cannot be dangerous.
It is easy enough to see where the first conclusion comes from and there is circumspect advice in the UMB that“Low balls over defenders sticks in a controlled manner that hit half shin pad are not dangerous”which gives partial support for it, but it is not generally correct: each instance should be viewed in a subjective way taking into consideration intent, recklessness, etc.
The second conclusion, that an ‘on-target’ shot cannot be dangerous, is simply outrageous and a direct contradiction of the intent of the Rule in situations where the goal is defended by players positioned between the shooter and the goal, because it renders irrelevant ‘legitimate evasive action’, which is the only definition of a dangerously played ball there is. If a defender was forbidden to positioned between a shooter and the goal there would be no need for the term ‘legitimate evasive action’ because the positioning could not be legitimate so evasion from the position adopted could not be legitimate – and that seems to be the approach taken to players who attempt to defend a shot at the goal.
The obvious solution is to apply the same kind of objective criteria to any ball that is raised as is applied to the first raised shot at a penalty corner if the ball is hit – not the same criteria but the same kind of criteria ie. objective criteria- but with some refinements. It is prohibited to raise a first hit shot at the goal at a penalty corner above 460mm (an objective criteria) in any circumstances , the ball need not be at a player to be penalised, it could be at an empty goal. But for a dangerously played ball there must be the possibility of endangerment, so the first criteria suggested is that the ball is propelled at (towards) a player. (In effect replacing a Rule which was altered in 2004A player must not raise the ball at another playerand was – strangely – moved to the Guidance embedded with Rule 9.9 and had a 5m limit attached to it)
The second consideration is distance. There are already in place the above Rules relating to 5m, but there is a erroneous perception from them that a ball cannot be propelled at a player in a dangerous way from beyond 5m. Given human reaction times, once players are aware that the ball is moving in their direction, just beyond 5m is hopelessly inadequate as a safe distance from which to raise the ball at a player at above knee height.
Taking 0.2 sec as an average reaction time between awareness (sight) and response (any detectable movement), a ball with a velocity of 70mph (not fast by top-level drag-flick standards) will travel approximately 6.32m in that time.
In 0.5 secs. about the time required to respond with the stick to the flight-path of a ball, such a ball will have moved approximately 15.79 m. It is reasonable to suggest that a ball propelled high and at high velocity at another player from within 15m. should be considered potentially dangerous – and that is what is being considered, potential endangerment.
Next is height. The reason the UMB suggests that half shin pad height is not dangerous is because players should be wearing shin-pads, but even if they are not, a hit with the ball on the lower leg is not likely to be immediately life-threatening or to cause permanent injury. But if a player is hit around the heart or in the throat or head that situation changes. These are areas of the body above elbow height, so elbow height, besides being an easy to see reference point (like knee height) is the suggested height for ‘dangerous’.
This leaves a ‘grey area’ between knee height and elbow height once the ball is more than 5m from an opponent, but umpires should be able to apply common sense and subjective judgement in this (as they claim to at the moment) without recourse to a tape-measure.
A degree of subjective judgement is also required about velocity. An umpire cannot know if the ball is traveling at a velocity of 69 mph or 73 mph or any other speed, with great accuracy, but can determine if the ball is traveling at a velocity that could cause injury to any player hit with it at the height it is traveling. A hit to the leg, that would perhaps be temporarily painful but not incapacitate the player hit, might fracture the skull of that same player if they were hit on the head – even a ball of moderate speed can cause severe face or head injury.
So there they are 1) At a player 2) Within 15m 3) Above elbow height 4) At a velocity that could injure. Then both players and umpires would know when evasive action was legitimate.
The down-side, if it can be called that, is that consideration for the safety of defenders makes it more difficult to score a goal more skill is required to keep the ball low or target an area not occupied by a defender. It is much easier (if a foot cannot be ‘found’ to win a penalty corner) just to ‘thrash’ the ball at the goal, preferably with a raised reverse edge hit, and if a penalty corner is ‘won’ to flick the ball high at the goal as powerfully as possible without regard for the positions of defenders (or even to ‘target’ defending players) ; regrettably such cynicism is not uncommon.
There are two other Rules to consider. The first, the Obstruction Rule needs a little amendment (the replacement of “is permitted to” with “must“) but it then needs to be applied, with its Guidance, as it is currently written.
9.12 Players must not obstruct an opponent who is attempting to play the ball. Players obstruct if they : – back into an opponent – physically interfere with the stick or body of an opponent – shield the ball from a legitimate tackle with their stick or any part of their body.
A stationary player receiving the ball is permitted to face in any direction. A player with the ball is permitted to move off with it in any direction except bodily into an opponent or into a position between the ball and an opponent who is within playing distance of the ball and attempting to play it.
A player who runs in front of or blocks an opponent to stop them legitimately playing or attempting to play the ball is obstructing (this is third party or shadow obstruction). This also applies if an attacker runs across or blocks defenders (including the goalkeeper or player with goalkeeping privileges) when a penalty corner is being taken.
But it would probably be helpful to list obstructive acts – all of which are now generally ignored - in the UMB and the current rulebook as they were listed in 2003 in the Advice for Umpires section then at the back of that rulebook :-
Umpires should be aware of players who are in possession of the ball who: - back into an opponent; - turn and try to push past an opponent; - shield the ball with body, leg or stick and stand still when under pressure; - drag the ball near their back foot when moving down the side-line or along the back-line; - shield the ball with the stick to prevent a legitimate tackle.
It would, however, be better all round if the UMB, with its unauthorized additions to Rule Guidance and conflicts with the published Rules, ceased to be published at all – it is worse than an utterly useless document because it is divisive – and furthermore it was supposed to have been discontinued having been subsumed into the rulebook after 2002.
From Content of the Rulebook 2002
RULES’ INTERPRETATIONS In the past, in addition to the Rules Interpretations included in the Rules Book, briefing papers have occasionally been prepared primarily for umpires at international tournaments. However, we all play the game by the same set of Rules so interpretations in the Rules Book should be as complete as possible. Additional papers should be unnecessary. Accordingly, Appendix B (Rules Interpretations) in this 2002 edition has been significantly revised. It now incorporates the other briefing papers referred to above. At the same time the layout and some parts of the text have been simplified. Everyone is encouraged to read the full revised text of Appendix B.
(So much for good intentions).
Third-party obstruction should be considered under a separate heading and not ‘mixed up’ as it is now with obstruction by a player in possession of the ball.
Lastly, Rule 9.11 needs to be restored and simplified as:-
Field players must not intentionally play the ball with any part of their body.
This simply moves the word ‘intentionally’ back to the Rule where it was and has been for much of the time hockey has been played. This is necessary because some National Associations, Australia for example, seem to regard the Rule Guidance as optional (except when it suits them not to do so – as in the Obstruction Rule, where Guidance which was deleted in 2001 is applied as if current).
One result of this approach to Rule Guidance is the regarding of all ball/body contact as an offence – which is the opposite of what was originally intended, and is still intended if the Rule Guidance is taken proper account of. The skill of making space in the circle to score a goal has been replaced with merely getting into the circle and then ‘finding a foot’ – pathetic.
.
Several other deleted areas such as Gains Benefit and Forcing as an offence need restoration, with rewording to make them more precise, but the rescue of the game – conducted as now as a form of ‘soccer’ with sticks – depends mainly on the repair or restoration of the three Rules areas set out above.
.
Link to Index of Ruleshttp://wp.me/p3tNmd-3
