Field Hockey Rules: Conflicting interpretation

Legitimate.

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

Legitimate evasive action.

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

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

.

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

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

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

Players are permitted to raise the ball with a flick or scoop provided it is not dangerous. A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous.

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

.

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

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

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

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

Interpretation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aren’t these gaps worth closing?

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

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

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

Nij.

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

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

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

Nij.

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

[mod edit: unnecessary expletive deleted] ‘

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

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

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

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

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

Diligent likes this.

 Nij

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nij

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

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

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

Keely

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nij

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nij

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

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

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

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

Keely

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nij

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

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

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

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

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

Deegum said: So the meaning of English has changed?

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

Nij

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

Funny, I could have sworn someone answered this.

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

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

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

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

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

.

Rules of Hockey. Deletion and Amendment

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

A suggested deletion.

13.2.f

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

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

Alternatively :

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

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

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

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

This Rule therefore needs amending

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

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

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

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

 Except:    

1) when it is judged to be dangerous play

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

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

Rules of Hockey. ‘Foot’ con

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-VF  on 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 .

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.

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.

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).

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.

But it was, so what happened?

Rules of Hockey. First Shot at Penalty Corner

Amended 7nd April, 2013.

Rules of Hockey. Penalty corner. First Shot at the goal.

A point arising from Loopy Vicious Circles. http://wp.me/pKOEk-VF

Question around 13.3 l

Discussion in ‘Umpiring Corner’ started by Cookie,Mar 6, 2013.

Cookie

I have a feeling this may have been discussed but i couldn’t find it.

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

My question is whether that is really meant to cover the runner at the top of the circle – or does it apply to the first shot if it is less than 5m from goal.

So I actually had the scenario on Saturday where a scrappy PC resulted in the first shot being a flick from about 4 yards out which hit a defender in his midriff. He was just off the line and so i am asking should that be FHD under the guidance or PS?

Similarly had it hit him below the knee then a strict reading of the guidance would suggest its a PC and not a PS – which surely can’t be intended.

 jayjay

yes, this is really meant to be in reference to the first runner, though you are right that that isn’t actually specifically said. the idea behind this guidance is that a ball which strikes someone above the knees who is closer than 5 metres to the taker is supposedly going over the goal, rather than travelling on a path that would score a goal. 

in your situation you should simply consider danger. and the guidance of one rule does not overrule the text of the rule of another. so if it hit his feet on the line and stopped the probable scoring (or actually the certain scoring of a goal, barring a dog materialising out of thin air on the line) of a goal, that that should be a PS, in accordance with 12.4 a. no doubt the usual suspects will tell you to simply “play on” as the person didnt stop the ball with their body “voluntarily”. just apply common sense to the situation and you’ll be fine.

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

I am not one of the usual suspects, I am guilty as charged, but not only would I say that there was no offence by the defender, if  the contact was not made “voluntarily”, I would also say the first instance described was in any event a dangerous play offence by the attacker. I would add that in the case of a hit below the knee, even thought there is a very obvious benefit gained by the defender for his team – i.e. preventing the ball entering the goal,  it is not now possible to invoke the ‘gained benefit exception to “not done voluntarily” because that exception has been deleted.

There should of course be a ‘gains unfair advantage exception’ when a  shot is not dangerous according to Rule 13.3.l. or Rules 9.8 and 9.9 – but there isn’t – “them’s the Rules as they are written  in 2013″.  ”Disadvantaged opponents” is of course only applicable when there has been an offence, the competitors in a hockey match spend the entire game legitimately trying to disadvantage each other. Disadvantaging an opponent is not of it self either a breach of Rule or an offence.

The assertion that Rule 13.3.l is meant to be in reference only to a ball propelled at a first runner must be rejected. There is no freedom for the attackers in Rule 13,3,k to strike a first hit shot as high as they wish if it is not struck at or past an out-running defender – a pass to the injector does not free the injector to then make an above knee height hit shot – why should the Rules that pertain in the penalty corner situation be any different for a first shot that is flicked if it is not flicked immediately from the top of the circle but taken closer to the goal and then flicked?

The second incident in the clip below is fairly similar to the one described in the opening post. The shot is made from around 4m and hits the defender just below the throat. Fortunately it was not made at the maximum velocity the shooter was capable of, because it was made off the front foot, and the defender was not injured, but the shot was certainly contrary to the Rules of Hockey – within 5m and raised to above knee height at an opponent. I strongly dispute the assertion or assumption made, that  Rule 13.3.l applies only when a ball is propelled at an out-runner near the top of the circle. Penalising an above knee height flick made from within 5m of an opponent is also completely compatible with the Guidance given in Rule 9.9. concerning the raising of the ball with a flick at a player within 5m in any phase of play (no height limit given)  - so one way or another,  raising the ball at an opponent who is within 5m is, by Rule, considered dangerous play.

The incident in the International Match is a lot more difficult. The shot is legal in that it is made from beyond 5m – so no height limit is aplicable. The defender tries to play the ball with his stick. I see no evidence that he played it with his body intentionally, but voluntarily? Who knows? I am uneasy when I see a penalty stroke given when the circumstances and reasons for awarding it are less than completely clear and the actions of the player hit are not very obviously contrary to Rule. It should be noted that the Australians asked for a video referral citing a dangerously played shot.   If it were a Rule, that an on target shot at goal could not be dangerous, the match umpire could not reasonably have put the question to the video umpire ( unnecessarily delaying the game) when the answer would have been a foregone conclusion.

The first incident on the video clip, the international Match, is an example where the playing of the ball at an opponent at above elbow height being considered a dangerous play offence  would make the task of the umpire easier and the application of Rule fairer. Should the shot be too high and of a velocity that could injure anyone hit with it, it is penalised, if it is not above elbow height (sternum) and is prevented from entering the goal by a field player other than with the stick – penalty stroke.

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

shipstontkd I take this guidance to mean any runners or defenders in the D, however a defender on the line is a completely different kettle of fish. He/she knows the risks they are taking being on the line and would suggest that they would expect the ps in most cases. As a matter of interest what was your call on Sat?

DavidBurns

shipstontkd said: I take this guidance to mean any runners or defenders in the D, however a defender on the line is a completely different kettle of fish.

So you dont take the guidance to mean ANY runner or defender in the D, a defender on the line is still a defender in the circle.

 DavidBurns

jayjay said: yes, this is really meant to be in reference to the first runner,

Do you use this for strikes at goal or just dragflicks?

A hit striking someone just below the knee at 4.5m would more than likely be passing the line above bb height. would you still apply the guidance or blow it for the hit being too high?

Resslys Agent likes this.

Diligent

Blow it: would be too high if it had reached the goal line.

jayjay

DavidBurns: as you can see, this guidance is in regards to rule 13.3 l, thus does not apply to the first shot at goal if this is a hit, that’s covered by 13.3 k. while you could therefore apply it to subsequent shots at goal that are hits, i think the guidance really is only truly useful when applied to the first shot that isnt a hit when a defender is charging it down at the top of the D. for all other situations you can simply use your common sense to apply the danger rule.

DavidBurns

Ta much

 deegum

JJ said: no doubt the usual suspects will tell you to  simply “play on” as the person didn’t stop the ball with their body “voluntarily”.

This suspect won’t this time.

JayJay said: in your situation you should simply consider danger……,

And

as you can see, this guidance is in regards to rule 13.3 l, thus does not apply to the first shot at goal if this is a hit

 JayJay, may I, very politely, with no hostility etc., say you are simply wrong in this case.: 

If a defender is within 5m of the first shot, and is struck by the ball, no goal can be scored. regardless of how long after the ball is injected it is taken, or the type of stroke, or from how far out from goal, or how hard, or soft, or how high, or low, the contact is. [Retake PC or FHD are the options]

13.3.l lf a defender is within five metres of the first shot at goal during the taking of a penalty corner and is struck by the ball below the knee…

Plain unambiguous statement that could hardly be any clearer, a statement that in no way modifies the requirements or Guidance of 13.3.k

From the OP

first shot being a flick from about 4 yards out which hit a defender in his midriff.

There’s also rule 9.9

Players are permitted to raise the ball with a flick or scoop provided it is not dangerous. A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous

Multiple posts merged  by moderator – Deegum please try to sort out your browser problem.

Resslys Agent

Going against guidance and using triganometry, if it hits below shin pad within 5 from a at the top of the D from a shot that is hit, then chances are it is going above the 18 inches of the backboard!

However, as we can’t always determine speed which will affect balls trajectory then we should use the guidance.

Diligent

Just as plain and unambiguous a statement is the note  to 13.3k: 

If the first shot at goal is a hit and the ball is, or will be, too high crossing the goal line it must be penalised… 
It might strike a defender below the knee, but if it was rising to cross the line above 460mm, that’s a FHD.

deegum 

Sorry about the ” multiple posts” folks.  They didn’t show up at my end, simply disappeared into the ether, I didn’t know I had that particular problem.

jayjay

deegum, i was simply making the point that if its a hit, we apply the guidance for what happens when the first shot at goal at a PC is a hit, and when its a flick, we apply the guidance of what happens when the first shot at goal at a PC is a flick. seemed simple enough to me.

you’ll  find i was in no way making a reference towards the scenario in the OP, as i had already said, regard danger.

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

The two questions:-

He was just off the line and so i am asking should that be FHD under the guidance or PS?  

Answer Free ball to defence for dangerous play, there is  no justification whatsoever for a penalty stroke.

Similarly had it hit him below the knee then a strict reading of the guidance would suggest its a PC and not a PS – which surely can’t be intended.

Answer.  During a penalty corner the Rules clearly mandate the award of another penalty corner if a defender is hit below the knee with a shot taken from less than 5m.

In open play “Play on” – there are reasonable grounds to penalise when the shot is a second or subsequent shot or is made in open play, even when the ball/body contact was accidental and unavoidable by the defender, a goal has been prevented by illicit means (an action that would be an offence if done intentionally), but in the absence of intention and of a gains benefit exception to the ‘voluntarily’ Guidance, there no longer exists a Rule justification to do so.  Someone ought to inform the FIH RC: perhaps a National Umpiring Association should do that. It is not reasonable for umpires to be substituting their ‘common sense’ for Rule six years after a deletion has thrown up such a frequently occurring problem. But the last thing wanted is a return to the ‘blanket’ “gained benefit” where every ball/body contact is assumed to be of benefit or to disadvantage opponents and therefore open to penalty – in fact it would be better not to penalise foot/ball contact at all than to return to a situation where an umpire can find reason to penalise all such contacts, because many would do just that – some still do  - thus encouraging attackers to force such contacts  (especially as there is now no Rule which specifically forbids the forcing of a ball/body contact onto an opponent if the ball is not played in a dangerous way i.e. the ball is played into an opponent’s feet).

It is fair that the forcing of a ball/foot contact be no longer regarded as an offence if – and only if – foot/ball contact be no longer regarded as an offence.  This arrangement makes intent irrelevant. That might be workable with a ‘gained unfair advantage exception’, applicable only when a certain goal was prevented after a legal (non dangerous) shot or a player in possession of the ball made foot contact with it.  Dangerous play that results in ball/body contact by an opponent should of course be penalised as dangerous play – that is not happening at the moment when the dangerous play (a raised ball) is a shot at (or ‘through’) field-players defending their own goal, often not even, as can be seen in the video example,  when the criterion – above knee height at an opponent within 5m – clearly applies.

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

Field Hockey Rules: Questions on dangerous play.

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Field Hockey. Ball Body Contact Rule – A Suggestion

Field Hockey Rules. Ball Body Contact. Forcing. Feet. Shot at goal.

(i) Field-players may not intentionally make contact with the ball with any part of the body.

ii) Players may not intentionally propel the ball at or into any part of the body of another player.

Unless a ball/body contact is clearly intentionally made or caused, play should continue except in the case of injury to a player hit with the ball.  Play should be restarted with a bully when there is a ‘no-fault’ stoppage for injury.

Exceptions.

An accidental ball body contact by a defender that directly prevents a goal when the ball is played by the stick of an attacker in the circle should result in the award of a penalty stroke – unless there has been a prior offence by a member of the attacking team.

An accidental ball body contact by a defender that prevents an own goal when the ball is not played by the stick of an attacker in the circle should result in the award of a penalty corner – unless there has been a prior offence by a member of the attacking team.

A player in possession of the ball, who makes accidental body contact with the ball may be penalised if the umpire considers that the action conferred an unfair advantage to that player or their team. Foot/ball contact in the opposition circle should be penalised if the attacking team retain possession of the ball or some other advantage is gained.

The proposal suggests the return of  limited ‘gains unfair benefit’ exceptions and sets out a forcing offence that is not presently covered by “other Rules” (following the transfer of forcing offences to other Rules which covered the same offence e.g. dangerous play). “Positioning with intention to” and “voluntarily” are terms – from the present Rule Guidance, that have been avoided deliberately, because both are vague.

The proposal also invites players to improve their passing and dribbling skills. It is not a skill to hit an opponent with the ball while attempting to pass it to a team-mate.

Why the suggestion?

Here is the relevant part of the current Guidance

It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a fi eld 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.

There appears to be repetition in the current  Rule Guidance, because playing the ball (in any way) is an intentional action. Voluntarily, means ‘willingly’ and is an odd choice because it is not quite the opposite of involuntarily (intentionally and unintentionally are clearly opposites) and it is the difference between an intentional and an unintentional action that is the crux of the Guidance. A player might be willing – given the choice -to accept being hit with the ball to prevent a goal but that does not necessarily mean that the player intentionally let the ball hit him or her or intended to play it with the body. Positioning with an intention to play the ball with the body is a deliberate action. There is a big difference between ‘voluntarily’ (willingly) and ‘deliberately’.:there is a significant difference in meaning between ‘intentionally’ and ‘deliberately’. 

What is obviously not being properly communicated is that an unintentional ball/body contact is not an offence. This is obvious because accidental and even forced contacts are resulting in the player hit being penalised.

All of the examples shown in the video clips below resulted in the award of a penalty corner. It would not be difficult to find another twenty-five, what is hard is finding one incident of foot/ball contact that is obviously intentional or an incident of clearly unintentional ball/body contact that is not penalised: even obviously deliberately forced and unavoidable foot/ball contact and clearly accidental contact results in the player hit with the ball being penalised (often after the ball has been illegally raised, even with the use of the prohibited ‘hard’ forehand edge hit)

.

.

The current Guidance, as has been pointed out previously by others, might be better written:-

 

The player commits an offence only if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball 

But starting the sentence with The player commits an offence if  might even be marginally worse than  The player only commits an offence if 

 

Both are poor communication of the intent of the Guidance because they both ‘plant’ “player commits an offence” which seems to be the only part of the  sentence that is read and retained.

 

The previous It is not an offence unless.…would possibly achieve a better understanding, but it doesn’t look as if many umpires are going to shift their perception voluntarily, They have positioned themselves with the intention of penalising any player who makes any ball/body contact in any way. Umpires refraining from intervention to penalise only when opponents can play on with a clear advantage is to treat an unintended ball/body contact as an offence – but such contact is not an offence.

 

The other ‘catch all’ (the first being the withdrawn but still applied ‘gains benefit or the substituted ‘disadvantage opponent’, ‘influence play or ‘effected play’ – all of which are used) is:-

 

if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way (by playing it with the hand foot or body).

 

I don’t have the slightest idea what “position themselves with the intention of” means in the context of this Rule Guidance or how such intention might be identified – unless it is assumed that if a player does make a ball/body contact while in a defensive position, they intended to be hit with the ball, evidenced only by the position they had taken up (between a shooter and the goal or between an opposing player in possession of the ball and another opposing player) – the Guidance creating a ‘catch-all’ or ‘Catch 22′ situation.

 

Is ‘positioning’ the offence or is there an assumption made that all ball body contact that occurs while a player is in a defensive position is intended: which might fit with ‘position with intention to’ ? If that is the case and that does seem to be so, it makes the rest of the Guidance redundant and disingenuous. 

I believe that position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way is intended to prohibit a player moving – for example by ‘diving’ or ‘dropping’ to the ground in front of an opponent with the ball to position so that a ball/body contact is inevitable. It is a foul – a ‘tackle’ or block with the body – committed from close range i.e. usually from within playing distance of the ball, and is a counterpart to obstruction – which is positioning the body between the ball and a close opponent to prevent the opponent playing the ball. That makes sense of the clause, not least because nowhere else in the Rules of Hockey is such an action, which is obviously illegal, prohibited. That such a prohibition should be mixed up with other ball/body contact Guidance is not surprising; there is still some mixing of obstructive ball shielding by a player in possession of the ball and third-party obstruction, which is quite a different thing, in the Guidance to the Obstruction Rule- although Guidance concerning these difference offences is not now as unclear as it once was.

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

Field Hockey. Dangerous Play. Shot At The Goal

Field Hockey. Rules. Dangerous play shooting at the goal.

In general play the Rules concerning the dangerous playing of the ball are divided between Rule 9.8 and Rule 9.9.

9.8 Players must not play the ball dangerously or in a way which leads to dangerous play.
A ball is considered dangerous when it causes legitimate evasive action by players.

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

Players are permitted to raise the ball with a flick or scoop provided it is not dangerous. A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous.

Greater leeway is given when raising the ball during a penalty corner. The ball may be lifted to knee height with the first hit shot (and therefore presumably with a first flicked shot). It is not clear if subsequent shots, hit or flicked, may be raised (just under) knee height as the first shot may be. Umpires are advised in the Umpire Briefing document that a ball raised to “half-shin height” is not dangerous. Half-shin height is approximately 25cms., so presumably a ball raised at another player which is above 25cms may be considered dangerous play. There is no mention of ball velocity in any of these Rules.

13 Procedures for taking penalties. Taking a 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.

In the incident shown in the video clip the ball is flicked high (near head height) and powerfully at a defender who is within 5m of the attacker who propelled the ball. The defender did not move into the path of the ball, on the contrary, he tried to avoid being hit. All the criteria for determining that the ball was played in a dangerous way were met, including both objective criteria: so why did the umpire award a goal and not a free ball to the defending team when the ball deflected off the defender into the net?

The ‘justifications’ frequently offered for such decisions are 1) that there were no protests from the players, so the umpire was doing as the players expected, and 2) the umpire was re-appointed to officiate at subsequent matches, so (he or she) was doing as selectors and umpire managers and coaches expected.

I don’t believe there would have been a ‘storm of protest’ if the umpire had awarded a free ball to the  defending team, that too would have been accepted (or ‘sold’ as some umpires put it). The apparent acceptance, by selectors and umpire coaches, of the failure of the umpire to follow the Rules of Hockey, is however baffling. We seldom get to know if the umpire was ‘spoken to’ or ‘marked down’ due to the incorrectness of this kind of decision, and of course ‘disciplinary action’ of this sort, even if it occurs, does not alter the decision or prevent other umpires following the example set by it. In fact it may be asserted by some that because the “goal” decision was made by an experienced National Premier League Umpire, appointed in this instance to the Final of the National League, the decision must have been correct (the official involved also happened to be an FIH Umpire). That the decision was so obviously in conflict with the published Rules of Hockey (and all other relevant documents produced by the FIH) seems not to matter. 

The most worrying aspect though must be the risk to players; if this sort of reckless endangerment is not discouraged. Those shooting at the goal will continue to do so without regard for the safety of others, as the attacker in the above clip did. The defender in this instance may be said to have been lucky he was hit near his collar-bone; he had instinctively averted his face and could just as easily have been hit on the head, possibly just in front of his ear, with far more serious consequences than soreness and a bruise. This is what is called ‘an accident waiting to happen’: actually it is negligence, the umpire failing in his duty to do what a reasonable person would in the circumstances do.

What is causing the ignoring of obviously (that is obviously given the Rule criteria) dangerous play? I believe that to be what is seen as the unreasonableness of (absence of ‘common sense’ in)  the objective criteria, especially when applied to players at the the higher levels of the game. It is unreasonable to state, once players have reached a quite modest degree of competence, that a ball raised above 25cms from almost 5m is certainly dangerous play, but that is what a literal reading of Rule Guidance (combined with the UMB) gives us in general play.

Once the decision is made (prior to any game )to ignore the given objective criteria (as unreasonable), there is no justification in Rule to search for or apply any other objective criteria, the umpire therefore uses subjective judgement alone. As umpires have in the past (but not currently) been warned in Umpire Briefings, that evasive action may be ‘a con’ by defenders, to make umpires believe that a ball is dangerously played, when in fact the ball has not actually endangered a defender and evasive action is not really ‘legitimate’ (genuine/necessary), it was an easy step to regard all evasive action as suspect or even faked, and some umpires still regard any evasive action in this way (pointing to level of skill),  even if this may be unreasonable given the height and velocity at which the ball is traveling.

Add to that the similar opinion that a player who is hit may have (or definitely did) intend to be hit: positioning in front of the goal therefore being seen as ‘illegitimate’, a tenuous reference to a 2001 umpire coaching paper (now withdrawn) which declared “the defender (in front of the goal) arrogates to himself the position and duties of a goalkeeper……the ball may be shot at him as if he were a fully equipped goalkeeper” which was never quite cancelled out by the conflicting “an attacker must shoot at the goal not at a defender positioned between the attacker and the goal” from the same document. It is impossible to defend the goal without positioning between the shooting attacker and the goal and if such positioning is deemed to be ‘suspect’ or even illegitimate (not legal), the whole structure of the judgement of a dangerously played ball falls apart, because no ball can in those circumstances be considered dangerously played – which is where we seem to be at present with an ‘on target’ shot at the goal. It appears that only if the ball is going wide of the goal (UMB) will it be considered dangerous – which is ridiculous.

I believe ‘knee height’ needs to be used as a criteria for ‘dangerous’ in general play, but only for a ball raised from within 3m, and elbow height ought should be used for balls propelled from any distance beyond 3m.(and up to 20m given that the ball may be drag-flicked into the circle in the hope of a deflected ‘own goal). I think these would be more reasonable heights and distances.

‘Legitimate evasive action’ needs to be withdrawn as a criteria, it has never made sense to determine if the actions of the player propelling the ball are dangerous dependent on the reaction (or lack of reaction) to the propelled ball by an opponent. It makes more sense to consider ball velocity and the propensity of a ball propelled at high velocity to cause injury, than to consider if evasion was legitimate or not (provided it could be attempted at all).

.

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

Field Hockey Rules: Frighteningly Bizarre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2008 Olympics.

2010 World Cup.

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

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

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

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

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