Field Hockey Rules: Inventing Rule Guidance.

Cut from the article “Text following the interpretation” to create a new article.

Why is the UMB divisive? Why is it published at all when all that is in it could (and should) be contained within the rule book?

The Umpire Managers Briefing for Umpires at FIH Tournaments – an FIH Umpiring Committee publication – in regard to Rule Guidance to the self-pass. The text highlighted in yellow, apparently Rule Guidance from the Rule concerning procedure for the taking of a Free-Hit, does not in fact appear anywhere in the Rules of Hockey.

This publication is not the Rules of Hockey, but having previously  ‘got away’  with  declaring that the Rules of Hockey follow the existing interpretation of ball/body contact given in the UMB, it’s hardly a surprise that inventing Rule Guidance  follows. The highlighted text in the above UMB page cannot become Rule Guidance until the FIH Rules Committee put it before the FIH Executive, receive their approval, and then publish it in the Rules of Hockey.

I hope it never is proposed as Rule Guidance. I think the people who came up with the idea of allowing a self-passer, who takes the pass without allowing opponents opportunity to retreat, to run the ball 5m without challenge, know as much about playing hockey as the average bookie knows about riding a race-horse in a Derby  – they have often seen it done.

So what if the UMB for International level Umpires is different to the normal Rules of Hockey – does that matter? Yes for two reasons. The first is that because everybody involved needs to be informed with the same information at the same time, Rule Variation for International level matches should be set out in the FIH published Rule Variations – the above variation is not.  

The second, and by far the more important for the average participant is that umpires of all levels are being actively encouraged to refer to the UMB for useful guidance. There is no reason whatsoever why any useful guidance should not be sanctioned by the FIH Rules Committee and published in the Rules of Hockey. The UMB is in fact being used to subvert the Rules of Hockey. That statement may seem to be ‘over the top’ but the above UMB page shown above was produced in 2011, presumably after liaison between the FIH Umpires Committee and the FIH Rules Committee (but maybe not),  the Rules of Hockey 2013-15 do not contain  the additional wording – so it is still not part of the Rule Guidance – but the UMB issued in 2013 still contains them.

The inverse of the method of change that was adopted after the deletion of the gains benefit exception to the Guidance to 9.11. is being used  In the case of ‘gains benefit’ umpires behaved (and still behave) as if the deletion had not taken place, (an issue initially confused by the publication of a ‘note’ reversing the change made after 2006).  In the case of the Self-pass unsanctioned additional wording has become ‘Rule Guidance’.  How ‘unsanctioned’ if it is in an FIH publication? That is easy to answer – it is not in the Rules of Hockey. It may ‘go against the grain’ for senior umpires to accept this, but they have no right whatsoever to invent Rule via ‘interpretation’. There is, on the other hand nothing preventing them, like anybody else, recommending changes to the existing Rules to the FIH Rules Committee and recommendations from Umpiring Associations are probably more likely to be seriously considered than suggestions from individuals . The move to a bi-annual publication of the Rules of Hockey was supposed to give time for changes to ‘settle’ and for players and umpires to become used to them. What has happened instead is that the UMB, which may be changed at any time the FIH Umpiring Committee want to change it, has become the vehicle for Rule change. One major problem with that is that much of the briefing umpires receive is given verbally and ‘cascaded’ to others in the same way.  It would probably be a good idea to again publish the Rules of Hockey annually and to once more include Advice to Umpires within it. 

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

.

Field Hockey Rules: Free Ball – Suggestions.

Field Hockey Rules. Free Hit

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

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

.

Suggestions

 

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

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

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

 

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

.

 

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

.

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

.

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

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

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

.

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

.

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

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

.

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

.

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

.

That lot sorted out:-

.

 

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

.

 

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

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

.

 

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

. 

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

13.2 Procedures for taking a free hit, centre pass and putting the ball back into play after it has been outside the field :

.

All parts of this Rule apply as appropriate to a free hit, centre pass and putting the ball back into play after it has been outside the field.

.

a.      the ball must be stationary

.

b.      opponents must be at least 5 metres from the ball.

.

If an opponent is within  5 metres of the ball, they must not interfere with the taking of the free hit or must not play or attempt to play the ball. If this player is not playing the ball, attempting to play the ball or influencing play, the free hit need not be delayed (and additional words from UMB not in the rule book): this same player can play, attempt to play the ball or try to influence play, once the ball has travelled 5 metres.

.

c.     when a free hit is awarded to the attack within the 23 metres area, all players other than the player taking the free hit must be at least 5 metres from the ball

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

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

– the ball must travel at least 5 metres, before

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

Alternatively :

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

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

“The notes to the foot body rule 9.11 say it is an offence ‘only’ when contact with the ball is ‘voluntary’, but in practice an accidental contact that alters the balance of play is just as much an offence as deliberately playing with foot or body.”  That advice – a true example –  is a direct contradiction of the Rule Guidance. But at least most of the individuals who write such things don’t often pretend to be ‘authority’ and can be identified and corrected – however much of this sort of ‘coaching’ is verbal and may even be denied to be occurring.

.

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

.

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

.

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

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

.

Rules of Hockey. Self-Pass. Speed.

Rules of Hockey. Self-Pass. Speed. Playing the ball into the circle.

Edited 23rd April 2013.

The Australian Coach Michael Nobbs, Coach of the Indian Senior Men’s team, quoted in the Hindi newspaper.

“The biggest change in hockey is the play-on rule: the self-pass rule from free hits. That has sped the game up astronomically; the umpires can’t even cope. The old things like playing good position are still important but if you don’t have speed you’re history”.

The statement does not ‘ring true’ to me. The Australians have always put an emphasis on fitness and have always prized foot-speed in their players.  Rolling substitution,  a change to Rule suggested from Australia, enables a high speed, high pressure,  game, which suites that emphasis.

I suppose the Self-Pass could be the ‘biggest’ legitimate change to the Rules of Hockey but I don’t believe it to be the most significant of all the changes.  It is true that it has led to some improvement in game-speed or ‘flow’, as a self-pass can quickly restore an interrupted attacking movement. There is no need to have a team-mate available to pass to, so a pass to another player does not have to be made and received, but I would not describe that speeding as ‘astronomically’ improved.  It has always been possible to pass the ball the instant it was stationary and in the correct position irrespective of the positioning of opponents and a back-pass can be executed as quickly and as effectively as a Self-Pass. The terms ‘stationary’ and ‘in the correct position’ may provide some insight into other reasons for a speeding-up of play and also go some way to explaining why Michael Nobbs thinks “the umpires can’t even cope.”

I feel that two elements are faulty in the present application of the Self-Pass.  The first is the requirement that (anywhere on the pitch) a retreating opponent ‘caught’ within 5m of a Self-Pass is not allowed to influence play until the ball has been moved 5m. This ‘interpretation’ (it is not actually Rule or Rule Guidance) is in place only because of the Rule requirement that a Free-Ball awarded in the opponent’s 23m area cannot be played directly into the circle (it must first be passed to another player who must be 5m away at the time the pass is made), and if a Free-Ball is taken as a Self-Pass, the ball must be moved 5m before it can be played into the circle.

These two completely unnecessary requirements, which remove much of the advantage of a Free Ball awarded in the opponent’s 23m area  - particularly when it is awarded close to the circle – also frequently  result in the attacking side looking to ‘create’ a penalty corner by running the ball at retreating opponents.  Because ‘catching’ opponents before they can make a legal intervention must be done before they have retreated 5m,  speedy action - rather than speed of foot – is important, but this tactic causes some very difficult passages of play to umpire  It is easy to see why the deletion of forcing as an offence in itself closely followed the introduction of the Self-Pass under this bizarre ’interpretation’. (It’s a bizarre interpretation because it is not evident from the published Rule (13.2) and Rule Guidance what wording, if any, is being interpreted in this way.).

The problems listed above may be resolved by deleting the prohibition on passing the ball directly into the circle from a Free Ball awarded in the opponents 23m area (that can be replaced with a prohibition on raising the ball into the circle with a hit – in any phase of play). That deletion would  remove the need for the ball to be moved 5m before being played into the circle when a Self-Pass is taken from within the opposing 23m area. There is also then no reason to require, that when a Self-Pass is taken (anywhere on the pitch) before retreating opponents have retreated the full 5m,  those retreating opponents must allow the ball to be moved 5m before attempting to intervene.  

The wording of the Rule Guidance can then be be applied as it is written.

13.2 Procedures for taking a free hit, centre pass and putting the  ball back into play after it has been outside the field :

a.   the ball must be stationary

b.   opponents must be at least 5 metres from the ball

If an opponent is within 5 metres of the ball, they must not interfere with the taking of the free hit or must not play or attempt to play the ball.

If this player is not playing the ball, attempting to play the ball or influencing play, the free hit need not be delayed. (my bold)

c.   when a free hit is awarded to the attack within the 23 metres area, all players other than the player taking the free hit must be at least 5 metres from the ball.

That is that once a Free Ball is taken (the ball is played by the taker) as a pass to a team-mate or as a Self-Pass, normal play resumes immediately. The ‘inventions’ that accompanied the prohibition on passing the ball directly into the circle are no longer required and the umpires need not concern themselves with opponents influencing play AFTER a Self Pass has been taken. An umpire need only be concerned if opponent action influences the taking of a Free Pass by delaying it or by preventing it entirely (actions such as not retreating or interfering with the ball or stick or person of the taker) – actions that take place before or as  the Free is being taken.

The result of this restoration should be to persuade the taker of a Free ball to take a more considered approach – instead of charging into retreating opponents as rapidly as possible – especially when the Free is in the opponent’s 23m area, there would then be the (restored) option of a direct pass into the circle to consider, as well as the possibility of a Direct Lift of the Free and the Self-Pass.

Although when I suggested the Self-Pass I did not anticipate the prohibition of direct passing into the circle from a Free Ball awarded in the opponent’s 23m area and the ‘inventions’ (*) that would spin-off from that, I did anticipate that a player awarded a Free might be so keen to take advantage of a Self-Pass opportunity immediately, that the ball would often be some distance from the correct place and/or not stationary when he or she took it, and for that reason I also suggested a second whistle when a Free Ball was awarded. The first whistle to stop play and indicate penalty, the second whistle to restart play when the umpire was satisfied that the ball was in the correct position and stationary (an incentive to the side awarded the Free to comply as rapidly as possible). The second whistle would in many instances follow closely on the first one.

In incidents where an offence has been committed against a player in possession of the ball and that player is able to play on immediately it will usually be the case that umpire intervention is unnecessary anyway, advantage can generally be allowed and the offence dealt with later, if considered appropriate, with a card.  Umpires seem  reluctant at present to award a Free Ball for an offence and then insist that the side awarded the Free comply with Rule requirements concerning placement and the moving ball.  They appear to be concerned about appearing pedantic and/or removing any advantage the awarding of the Free may have given the team offended against, this not only penalises the team the Free has been awarded against twice or even three times over – which is unfair – it is a cause of umpires themselves getting muddled and also being unable to keep up with the play they themselves have been a party to creating. It is not possible to award a Free Ball and at the same time allow ‘advantage’ to be played:  if an advantage should be played a Free Ball  should not be awarded

The recent increase in criticism, particularly from Australian coaches  (Commens made similar remarks before the London Olympics) in regard to umpires “not coping” with the increased speed of the game, suggests that there is a need for a  ’coping mechanism’, such as a second whistle, to be put in place.  The only other things that umpires can do is to get fitter and to think  (to read the game and to anticipate) more quickly and more accurately.

(*) Only in the UMB is there mention of a requirement that a Self-Passer be allowed to move the ball 5m before opponents can engage.

The UMB is not the Rules of Hockey.

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