Field Hockey Rules: Disadvantaged, benefit gained.

Field Hockey Rules. Unfair Benefit Gained. Disadvantaged.

Edited 2nd May 2013

In the Umpiring Section of the Rules of Hockey (which is where all the published umpire briefings and advice should be contained) under the heading

2  Applying the Rules.

there is a sub-heading  2.2.  Advantage  which advises:

a.    it is not necessary for every offence to be penalised when no benefit is gained by the offender ; unnecessary interruptions to the flow of the match cause undue delay and irritation

b.    when the Rules have been broken, an umpire must apply advantage if this is the most severe penalty

c.    possession of the ball does not automatically mean there is an advantage ; for advantage to apply, the player/team
with the ball must be able to develop their play

d.    having decided to play advantage, a second opportunity must not be given by reverting to the original penalty

The crux of the message is that the umpire has discretion about applying penalty when an Offence has been committed. There is a deviation introduced in clause (b) which refers to “when the Rules have been broken”, this is a deviation from clause (a) because a Breach of Rule may not necessarily be an Offence, We are given some examples in the Rules of Hockey of  Breaches of Rule (breaking of Rules) that are not offences, particularly in the Guidance to Rule 9.11 :-

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

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

It is not an offence if the ball hits the hand holding the stick but would otherwise have hit the stick.

We may argue indefinitely about the difference between ‘voluntarily’ and ‘intentionally’ and what is meant by or if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way , because no one seems to know the answers, but both those clauses refer to actions that are Breaches of Rule but are not, or are not always, offences.

To continue :- “an umpire must apply advantage if this is the most severe penalty” to call the applying of advantage a more severe penalty seems to me an odd use of language, as what is meant is that penalty should not be applied. It might have been better put, “an umpire should not penalise an offence if doing so would disadvantage the team offended against.”

There is another potential source of confusion connected to this in the Penalties Section, where ironically the second sentence is along the lines I suggested above (which avoided the double negative).

12 Penalties
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.(note ‘must’ not ‘may’)

The potential confusion is contained in “has been disadvantaged by an opponent breaking the Rules” when the only examples of a player being in breach of Rule and not at the same time committing an offence are:-

the exceptions given in Rule 9.11 mentioned above (which appear to be ignored)

the intentional playing of the ball over the base-line by a defender (a silly rule);

a defender, while attempting to use the stick to play the ball, hit below the knee from within 5m with a shot at the goal during a penalty corner (an unjust and dangerous rule)

The sentence would be better put “If awarding a penalty would be a disadvantage to the team offended against play must continue.

Being clear about what an Offence is and how it may or does differ from a Breach of Rule would go some way to sorting out the present muddle between advantage, not disadvantaged and gained benefit, as well as when and if a penalty ought to be applied. We could at least avoid this sort of nonsense

“Being forced, the defender’s foot contact with the ball was involuntary and unavoidable, but it disadvantaged an opponent and so a penalty corner was awarded.“  There is a Breach of Rule by the defender there, but no Offence and there should be no penalty, disadvantaging an opponent is not an Offence – players spend the entire playing time legitimately  trying to disadvantage their opponents – for an Offence there has to be either an illegal action or an action that is illegal in certain circumstances (which should be clearly set out) for example, intention.

The opposite is this “The defender stuck his leg out and deliberately kicked the ball but, as the attacker was able to regain possession of it and play on with advantage, a team penalty was not called for” (a personal penalty may however have followed after the event).

It has proved,to be extraordinarily difficult to get umpires to assimilate and accommodate the absence of the previous exception to the present Guidance to Rule 9.11.; an exception that was deleted firstly in 2006 and finally in 2009 (on this the third occasion this gained advantage or gained benefit exception clause has been removed. The previous time was in major rewrite of the rulebook in 1995/6 ).

The corresponding Rule of 1995/6 is I think an interesting contrast to the present version, although some of the same ambiguities and conflicts are present.

13.1.2    Use of body, hands, feet

A player shall not
a. stop the ball with the hand or catch it
There is nothing to prevent players using their  hands to protect themselves from dangerously raised balls.
b. intentionally stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry  the ball with any part of their bodies

It is not an offence if the ball hits the foot or body of a player unless that player:
• has moved into the path of the ball, or
• made no effort to avoid being hit, or
• was positioned with the clear intention of stopping the ball (with the body was added later)

Players should not be penalised when the ball is  played at them from a short distance.

c. use the foot or leg to support the stick in a tackle.

It was also of course an offence to force a ball contact on an opponent and to raise the ball at an opponent (it still is in some circumstances an offence to raise the ball at an opponent and ‘forcing’ ball/body contact is supposed to be covered by ‘other Rules’,but one would not know this from a casual reading of the 2013 rulebook).

Back to the present:

An involuntary  (unintentional) ball/body contact is a Breach of Rule(because the word intentionally has been removed from the Rule) but it is NOT an Offence and therefore there is no penalty stipulated for such Breach of Rule. There is currently no exception to that statement.  Advantaged gained, benefit gained, disadvantaged opponents,  PREVENTING A CERTAIN GOAL, are all irrelevant. The last a case of ‘throwing the baby out with the bathwater’ and an embarrassment that needs to be corrected with an amended gained unfair benefit clause in that case (and perhaps in only one other – an unintentional ball/body contact by a player who is in possession of the ball).

What to do with this following Guidance?

It is not an offence if the ball hits the hand holding the stick but would otherwise have hit the stick.

(better written  It is not an offence if the ball hits a hand holding the stick but would otherwise have hit the stick).

Delete it as covered by the Rule?

Rule 9.11.  Field players must not intentionally play the ball with any part of their body.

Job done, nothing more is needed for the Rule.

Rule Guidance could be added to cover an unintentional ball/body contact that prevents a certain goal, in the absence of a prior offence by opponents (such as a ball raised above a given height and/or from within a given distance at the player hit with the ball). Such body/ball contact should be penalised with a penalty stroke. Not to award a penalty stroke in such circumstances is likely to lead to reckless defending i.e. intentional self-endangerment. 

At this stage, a ‘mythology’ having developed about ‘acceptance of risk‘ and ‘positioning with the intention of using the body to play the ball‘ or ‘backing the stick with the body in case the ball is missed with the stick‘ which has led to the view that there is no such thing as an ‘on target’ dangerous shot at the goal,  it is necessary to point out in Guidance that an assumption of intent to use the body to play the ball based on prior positioning especially when it is beyond playing distance of the ball, is both unsound and unreasonable.

An ‘acceptance of risk’  is confined to acceptance that there is risk of unintentional dangerous play such as deflections and mis-hits (which should nonetheless be penalised) it does not include acceptance of a risk that the player hit will be deliberately targeted or that the ball will be played at them in a reckless way i.e. without consideration for the safety of other players on the part of the player propelling the ball.

In other Rule Guidance, to Rule 9.8. for example, umpires could usefully be reminded:- “A raised shot has to be made at goal, not deliberately (and/or dangerously) at a defender standing either in goal or between the goal and the striker“ (part in colour italics taken from The Lifted Ball  Gawley 2001). Which brings us to the need for a fit for purpose definition of a dangerously played ball, not least to avoid the circular arguments concerning what is and is not legitimate evasive action and how the umpire should respond when evasive action is not possible. 

.

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

Field Hockey Rules: Back- door ‘Rules’ and the Umpire Manager’s Briefing for Umpires

Edited 28th January 2013.

The introduction of the field hockey self pass threw up some issues during the experimental stage which were coped with on the spot during the Experiment Period by the introduction of what was seen to be a ‘common sense interpretation’ – an ‘interpretation’ which restricted the actions of any opponent who was with 5m of the ball when a self pass was taken.

I strongly disagree that such restrictions are an appropriate way of dealing with retreating defenders ‘caught’ within 5m of the ball when a self-pass is taken – but I have written about that elsewhere in this blog – this article is about the use by umpires of the advice given in the Umpire Manager’s Briefings for Umpires at FIH Tournaments (i.e International level hockey) to introduce Rule Guidance and even new Rule to the Rules of Hockey as ‘interpretation’.

I use here the briefing notes about the Free-Hit (which I always refer to as a free or a free-ball because the penalty is not necessarily executed with a hit)  from the UMB as a recent example of this practice.

The Umpire Manager’s briefing for Umpires.

Free Hits

•All opponents must be at least 5 metres from the ball
•For free hits awarded to the attack within their attacking 23 metre area -all players must be at least 5 metres from the ball

In all situations -if taken quickly and a player is within 5 metres of the ball but is not playing, attempting to play the ball or influencing play, the taking of the free hit does not need to be delayed; this same player can play, attempt to play the ball or try to influence play, once the ball has travelled 5 metres –be consistent in your judgment of this.

•Attacking free hits awarded within 5 metres of the circle are taken back to the nearest point 5 metres from the circle.

.
The Rules of Hockey
Rule 13.2 Procedures for taking a free hit, centre pass and putting the ball back into play after it has been outside the field :
All parts of this Rule apply as appropriate to a free hit, centre pass and putting the ball back into play after it has been outside the field.

a      the ball must be stationary

b      opponents must be at least 5 metres from the ball

If an opponent is within 5 metres of the ball, they must not interfere with the taking of the free hit or must not play or attempt to play the ball. If this player is not playing the ball, attempting to play the ball or influencing play, the free hit need not be delayed.

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

.

It will be noted that part of the  advice given in the UMB  has been highlighted (as it is in the current publication) and the highlighted part is a variation of the Rule Guidance given in the Rules of Hockey. In fact it is more than that because the Guidance in the Rules of Hockey is about action that could delay the taking of a free, but – because of the given Guidance – need not do so. The highlighted part (in the UMB) is about action that takes place after the free has been taken, an entirely different context. It perhaps raises the strange question “Is a free not taken until the taker has moved 5m with the ball – or alternatively, moved the ball 5m?” – This late revision has not been properly thought through.

The only legitimate ways to vary the Rules of Hockey, which includes the embedded Guidance, are by amendment to the published Rules of Hockey, which is a bi-annual publication, or by the issue of Rule Variation in FIH Tournament Regulations. The letter below explains when and where such variation may be used.

.
Link.   Application of Rules and Tournament Regulations

.
Extract from the above FIH document
FIH Tournament Regulations deal with the management and presentation of FIH world-level competitions. To enhance the profile of these competitions, Regulations are sometimes introduced which vary the Rules of Hockey. An example is that a Regulation currently specifies a green card indicates a two minute suspension whereas the Rules of Hockey specify a green card indicates a warning.

To encourage consistency in international hockey, such Regulations should be applied to all senior and under-21 international matches. However, the application of such Regulations to any other level of hockey is not endorsed by FIH. All other hockey should be played solely in accordance with the Rules of Hockey.

.

FIH Tournament Regulations Outdoor – January 2012

.

Appendix 9 contains the current Rules Variations to the Rules of Hockey.

There are no variations to Rule 13.2 Procedures for taking a free hit.

.

What the above means, when taken together, is that if the highlighted part of the Free Hits  is regarded as Rule Guidance then the UMB is being used to circumvent correct procedure for the amendment of the Rules of Hockey, even at International level. In other words FIH Officials  are not following the FIH’s own regulations. There is just no way that highlighted advice from the UMB could be said to legitimately apply to any hockey, never mind all hockey.

If this variation is to be incorporated into the Rules of Hockey (and I sincerely hope it will not be because I believe there are better alternatives) then that can only occur with the issue of the Rules of Hockey in 2013.(that didn’t happen, so now 2015) If it is to be introduced only at International level  then a Rule Variation to that effect has to be included in the FIH Tournament Regulations – in the same way that the revised stick bow measuring device was added to them at the beginning of 2012. It’s odd that the rules Committee did not take the opportunity at that time to adjust the Guidance to the ‘Free Hit’ – maybe they don’t intend to.

The proposed changes to the Rules of Hockey for 2013-15 are now known, there is alteration to the free, it may now be directly lifted with any stroke except a hit (making the term Free Hit even more redundant) but there has been (sadly) no amendment to the procedure for taking or the 5m requirements connected with the self-pass.

.

That ‘Briefings’ follow Rule and Rule Guidance, not lead or dictate it, was last set out clearly in the Contents of the  2002 Rules of Hockey thus:- (my colour variations)

RULES’ INTERPRETATIONS
“In the past, in addition to the Rules Interpretations included in the Rules Book, briefing papers have occasionally been prepared primarily for umpires at international tournaments. However, we all play the game by the same set of Rules so interpretations in the Rules Book should be as complete as possible. Additional papers should be unnecessary. Accordingly, Appendix B (Rules Interpretations) in this 2002 edition has been significantly revised. It now incorporates the other briefing papers referred to above.  At the same time the layout and some parts of the text have been simplified.”

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

The Rulebook underwent reformatting and a major rewrite in 2004 and much of the text was stripped out. It was not seen as necessary to repeat the above reminder of the ‘status’ of ‘briefings vis a vis the Rules.  That is unfortunate, but it is clear from the FIH letter referred to above (which was issued in 2010) that ‘briefings’ follow the Rules of Hockey not the other way about. Briefings cannot conflict with Rules embedded Rule Guidance of the Rules of Hockey and should not be used to create new and different Rule Guidance; they are for general advice and for the clarification of existing Rule and Rule Guidance.

The oft heard lament that “  ‘they’ are always changing the Rules” is not in fact the case, if ‘they’ is the FIH Rules Committee. But if ‘they’ are Umpire Coaches or individual umpires or groups of umpires, and that seems to so, then there are grounds for complaint. There is certainly cause for concern, but umpires at club level cannot be held to be responsible for confusion, when an UMB published by the FIH introduces variation to the Rules of Hockey without following the proper procedures and complying with the guidelines published by the FIH – especially when umpires are told on the FIH website that the UMB contains useful guidance  for all umpires. It is even more worrying to see senior umpires and others writing on forums about “the latest interpretations” to come from this or that Tournament, especially when such ‘interpretations’ are personal opinion and/or invention without any Rule backing at all. The most pernicious of these to date is the declaration that a shot which is clearly towards the goal cannot be dangerous. which appeared ‘out of the blue’ in television commentary at the 2008 Olympics and was heard to be said to players by an umpire during the Women’s World Cup in 2010.

It would be helpful when referring to ‘The FIH‘ while discussing publications and authority, to distinguish between The FIH Executive , The FIH Rules Committee, The FIH Equipment Committee, and The FIH Umpring Committee.

The FIH Rules Committee have sole authority, granted by The FIH Executive, for the content of the published  Rules of Hockey; the FIH Umpiring Committee advise on the coaching of umpires according to the Rules of Hockey, and to that end, are responsible for the content the UMB. The procedures for changes for rule and Rule Guidance are further explained here:-

http://www.fih.ch/en/sport/rules/faq

This being particularly relevant:-

18. What is the procedure for developing a rules change?

ideas come from a variety of sources including players, coaches, umpires, the media, officials at events, and so on;
ideas either come through National Associations and other groups or are referred directly to the HRB
ideas are analysed and discussed in the Rules Committee usually over a period of time in two or three meetings;
if the change is a relatively minor one, the Rules Committee may then be able to recommend a change;
if a significant change is involved, further investigations will take place and a working group is set up to look at all the implications;
significant changes are progressed through trials and mandatory experiments
having received comment and advice, the Rules Committee will come to a conclusion;
it then prepares a report about proposed rules changes for the Executive Board of the FIH (which will also have sanctioned related trials and mandatory experiments if they have taken place);
the Executive Board will either agree the change or refer it back for further consideration by the Rules Committee; the Executive Board cannot directly amend a proposed change;
it does not happen often, but a change might then have immediate effect;
otherwise the change is incorporated in the next Rules Book.

19. When does a rules change become effective?

Officially the 1 January date applies to all international competitions but National Associations have discretion to decide the implementation date at national level.

20. Who is ultimately responsible for rules changes?

The Rules Committee comes to a conclusion about any changes it considers desirable and prepares a report for the Executive Board of the FIH. The Executive Board will either agree the change or refer it back for further consideration by the Rules Committee; the Executive Board cannot directly amend a proposed change. Thus the ultimate responsibility rests with the Executive Board.

Note: that not even the FIH Executive Board can directly amend a proposed change to the Rules of Hockey (Rule and Rule Guidance). It would therefore be impossible for the Umpiring Committee to amend Rule Guidance via a UMB even in ‘consultation’ with the Rules Committee (which seems to take the form of a chat with the Chairman of the Rules Committee in which s/he is told what the FIH Umpiring Committee is going to do).

The existence of Rule variation and new Rules in the European Hockey League, a Tournament for club teams, further complicates an already complicated situation. Someone needs to ‘gather the reins’.

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