Field Hockey Rules. Deflected Falling Ball (again)

Edit. 07.07.2017    Addition of stills showing player positions at the time, and just after, the ball was deflected upwards

The Rule referred to by Simon Mason in commentary is Rule 9.10.

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

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

He correctly states that ‘the 5m Rule’ is the only consideration (to determine the legitimacy of the goal). The umpire refers to the video umpire but his only question is “Was the ball played by the stick of the attacker”.

Does the Explanation of Rule application change anything in this scenario?  i.e. was there a clear initial receiver and if so, who was it?

Clearly the goalkeeper is the initial receiver, at the time the ball was deflected upwards off the defending CAN player, the ENG player was considerably more than 5m from the place the ball fell and the goalkeeper was within 1m of it. Therefore there was an encroaching offence by the ENG player.

Why was the Rule ignored? A goal should not have been awarded.

There has been mention elsewhere of the guidance from the FIH Umpiring Committee given via an Interpretation of a video presented on the Dartfish website.

http://www.dartfish.tv/Player.aspx?CR=p38316c12660m183532&CL=1

Interpretation: –

The GER player passes the ball up the pitch. In trying to intercept the pass the ENG player deflects the ball high into his own 23 metre area. The ball is going to land between an ENG defender and a GER forward, potentially leading to dangerous play. A free hit is awarded to GER where the danger was created since the ENG defender did not give the GER forward the opportunity to receive the ball.

But this interpretation is not relevant to the CAN v ENG incident because in the GER v ENG match shown on Dartfish the ball falls between two opposing players who were already within 5m of each other when the ball was deflected upwards.

This encroaching offence below from AUS v BEL is more like the incident in the CAN v ENG match.

I suggest that because of the swing at the ball by the AUS player in the above video, besides there being an encroaching offence there was also other dangerous play. So two deliberate offences – and a yellow card should have been given. The ENG player in the CAN v ENG match does not play at the ball in a way that could have endangered the goalkeeper – but that, because of the prior encroaching offence, is irrelevant.

Neither of the two incidents referred to above in support of the Rule occur in the circle – and it has to be conceded that a ball that is falling into the goalmouth after a deflection off a defender creates problems that a ball falling considerably more than 5m from the goal-line is unlikely to cause.

No goalkeeper or any other defender can be reasonably expected to allow an attacker receiving the ball off a defensive deflection falling within 5m of the goal-line to receive and control the ball to ground without contest: it might be considered unreasonable to demand such compliance if the ball is falling anywhere within the circle. An attacker within 5m of the goal-line and under a falling ball is moreover extremely unlikely to attempt to control the ball to ground – a volley shot of some description is far more likely. For a Rule to demand that a defender allow 5m of space is unreasonable (perhaps even impossible) and grossly unfair in these circumstances and no Rule should be either unreasonable or unfair.

These situations could be resolved by penalizing a deflection that gives rise to a potentially dangerous situation rather than allowing a subsequent dangerous action to occur. There is support for this approach in the Interpretation given in the Dartfish video above and also in the current UMB, both of which use the phrase “potentially dangerous”. All that is needed is to change the wording of Rule 9.8. back from what it is now

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


A ball is also considered dangerous when it causes legitimate evasive action by players.
The penalty is awarded where the action causing the danger took place.

to what it was previously:- 9.8 Players must not play the ball dangerously or in a way which is likely to lead to dangerous play.

but it would be preferable to use both phrases

9.8 Players must not play the ball dangerously or in a way that leads to or is likely to lead to dangerous play.

  A deflection leading or likely to lead to dangerous play is then an offence and a free ball or a penalty corner, as appropriate, may be awarded.

I believe that it should also be an offence for any attacker to play or play at the ball when in the opponent’s circle if the ball is still above shoulder height.

For completeness it needs to be an offence if the ball is raised with a hit (away from the control of the player in possession) into the opposing circle and a height limit (elbow height perhaps) also needs to be put on any ball played into the opponent’s circle with any other stroke.

If there is supposed to be an emphasis on player safety lets have an emphasis on player safety

The previous prohibitions on raising the ball into the circle (which did not mention intention) were ‘lost’ when the Rule prohibiting any intentionally raised hit, other than a shot at the opponent’s goal from within their circle, was introduced. That Rule (9.9) has since been ‘eroded’ by ‘practice’.  Forget lifted – think danger which also seems to mean forget falling but cannot reasonably do so where there may be a contest for the ball.

The umpiring in the opening video is more erosion and an absence of common sense. It is likely, that as the ball was coming from his left and the attacking player approaching from his right, the umpire could not have been aware of the attacker’s position when the ball was raised if he was following the play. But this is the first thing the video umpire should have looked at and it should have been the umpire’s first question. It was after all the first thing that occurred to the commentators and something the umpire should have known he did not know and needed to know to make a sensible decision. Where there is no video available the trailing umpire, being in these situations in a position to see both the deflector and the attacker at the same time, should be consulted.

The video stills show that the ENG player was at least 10m from the goal at the time of the deflection and, because of the height the ball reached before it started to ascend, that he could not have been unaware that he would commit an encroaching offence.

Since discovering this sequence at the tail end of the video I am inclined to think that the umpire should have been more aware of the ENG player’s position. The ball was put up in front of the umpire’s position and slightly to his right – not falling towards the goal after being put up on his left, as I first thought it was when seeing the incident from another camera angle.

An example of umpire ‘brain fade’ he allowed the encroaching offence, which he must have seen, to fade from consciousness because he focused instead on whether or not the ball had touched the stick of the attacker – which in the circumstances was irrelevant.

 

This article should be read in conjunction with

https://martinzigzag.wordpress.com/2016/07/11/field-hockey-rules-a-broken-promise/

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s