Archive for ‘Interpretation’

July 27, 2017



There are several meanings given to the term intersubjectivity which are outlined in the following Wikipedia article.

It begins.  In its weakest sense, intersubjectivity refers to agreement. There is intersubjectivity between people if they agree on a given set of meanings or a definition of the situation. It has been defined as “the sharing of subjective states by two or more individuals.

There is, for example, agreement among the followers of several religions that humans have a spirit or soul and that there is a heaven, and also a hell, where the soul may be sent for eternity after physical death by a God; although there are many things the same religions do not agree about at all: such as which has the only God. Such agreement is generally referred to within a single religion as a universal or overwhelming consensus (or divine revelation), meaning that the holders of consensus views will dismiss and brush aside as irrelevant, any objection by individuals or even quite large groups of people. (The establishment of Protestantism, the name itself meaning ‘protesting’, is an object lesson in the self-destruction of so called Christians, as in the following centuries Catholics and Protestants, in turn dominant, set about murdering each other as fast as possible, notably in England, Ireland, France and Germany, but in other European countries too.)

There are many historical examples of individual objectors to widespread intersubjectivity (faith) being punished for dissent, even executed for it, as heretics, so the imposition of consensus, which should be a contradiction in terms and an impossibility, was and is very much a reality. Noam Chomsky has much to say about the imposition of consensus as far ‘the media’ and big multi-national corporations are concerned. No-one can be unaware of the outrage of muti-national corporations -banks etc. – over the democratic vote that the UK leave the European Union and how they have worked – with media help – to persuade voters that the result of a majority vote was or is unconstitutional and unfair and that the large minority are being badly treated. We are treated to the hilarious spectacle of one set of politicians accusing another of lying to voters before the referendum – when everyone should know that both sides ’embroidered’ or concealed facts – and are still doing so. The same kind of tactics are being used in the on-going debate about ‘global warming’, this produces total confusion, because there is no accepted authority that can be believed (it is not even clear which bodies are the authorities), with the result that most people distance themselves from all discussion of the subject. Discussion of the dangerously played ball is treated in the same way by those who participate in hockey related activities because the Rule is so subjectively applied that it has become just a matter of personal interpretation or opinion.

One of the best known examples of an imposed consensus is to do with a previous religious doctrine that the earth is the centre of the universe and therefore the sun and stars revolve around it. When Copernicus knew he was near to his death he published his observations and conclusions concerning the revolution of the earth and other planets around the sun, but two hundred years after his death many astronomers still placed the earth at the centre of the universe and insisted the sun traveled around it. One notable exception was another scientist, whose observations supported the views of Copernicus, by the name of Galileo Galilei. Galilei did publish his views and because of them was summoned to appear before the Inquisitors of the Roman Catholic Church and forced to recant. He was then placed in house arrest for the remainder of his life.

I have recently been exposed to an argument based on nothing more than a declared intersubjectvity or a supposed consensus. My life and freedom of movement are not under threat because of it, but my sanity may well be, as fighting against an irrational consensus feels to me much as I imagine arguing with a thickly padded brick wall might feel. This is a battle that has been going on for more than thirty years, and as Galileo was able to write two books during his house arrest, (but was not of course able continue to write and publish his arguments for the concept of a solar system to replace a central earth system), I have some idea how he must have felt. I can publish my comments about the Rules of Hockey and the application of them, but share with Galileo, being cast as a lone dissenter who is fighting what is declared to be a lost battle against the ‘common sense’ of ‘everyone else’.

Except that is not true. Many people agree with much of what I have written and have said so to me. The frustrating thing is, that in spite of that, they still follow what they themselves admit to be a bizarre consensus. The latest example arose from comment (which I have set out below and, more fully, again in a later article) made to this video which I posted to YouTube some months ago. The comment concerns in particular the last incident shown on the video clip. The first incident is very obviously a deliberate foul by the ESP player in possession of the ball. For which he wanted a penalty corner awarded, but was eventually given a free ball as the defender’s feet were outside the circle. The still from the video below shows, the different later incident in the same match, the moment the MAL player (the comment made was about), deliberately lifted the ball over the opponent’s tackle attempt and into his leg. There was no intention to make a pass or any attempt made to take the ball around the defender.


Michal Margolien

The defender should be responsible for their feet (last section of the video), especially since there was an attacker right behind them.

You are saying that if a defender fails to defend a forcing offence (yes forcing is still an offence if ‘other Rules’ are contravened) and is hit with the ball then the defender should be penalised. That cannot be so, it is illogical. The attacker was in clear contravention of what is given in Explanation of application to Rule 9.9.; that is the attacker committed a dangerous play offence – and it looks to me as if he did so deliberately.

I must add that if it is considered that a defender is obliged to defend his feet and legs (which should not in any case be ‘attacked’ with the ball), then the player in possession of the ball is obliged, by the same reasoning, to have the skill to make a pass without hitting his opponent with the ball. It is unreasonable and unfair to demand a difficult skill from a defender but not to require basic competence from an attacker who is in possession of the ball.

Michal Margolien
I do understand your reasoning and I like it 🙂 However, this is how hockey umpiring is interpreted and umpired these days and is being consistently blown (aka players expect it).


Michal, I would prefer that you offered argument against my reasoning other than declaring “that is how it is interpreted these days”. Why do we have bizarre interpretation; that is interpretation that does not logically interpret the wording given in the Rule and Explanation of Application? Convince me to change my mind, give me reason to do so.

Michal Margolien
As long as this is the vast majority consensus interpretation with the HRB, umpire managers, umpires and the hockey world in general, this issue is not that important to me in my life to fight for it but I cross my fingers for you.


ZigZag Hockey.

(part) It has always annoyed or amused me to hear the fatuous excuse ‘player expectation’, as it has usually come from those who frequently and loudly declare that players do not know the Rules of Hockey. Okay, that may be so, but how can players know the Rules of Hockey if umpires are applying something else? They can only learn what is in the rule-book and then become aware that this is not adhered to.

Michael agrees with me, supports my reasoning and wishes me luck, but he does not intend to do anything other than follow the dominant intersubjectivity, so for how long is this “vast majority consensus interpretation” to exist, if it is not, as it should be, challenged by umpires? The Australian international player Simon Orchard recently criticized umpiring practice and although an umpire himself (as I was for over thirty years) was roundly condemned by the very people who should have supported him – other umpires.

There is of course a minority consensus, the one between the FIH Rules Committee and the FIH Executive about what is printed in the Rules of Hockey, but it seems that when it comes to the interpretation of words and the application of the published Rules, there are FIH Committee Members who have opinions concerning ‘common practice’ and other opinions, which conflict with their views about common practice and about the use and understanding of the English language.

In the 16th Century not many people were much bothered about whether the Earth went around the Sun or the Sun around the Earth. They certainly were not prepared to put themselves at risk of imprisonment or death by challenging the consensus imposed by a powerful church. People have not changed much in this regard in the last five hundred years (but religions have been replaced to a large extent by other entities). I just happen to be one of those individuals who would prefer not to have opinion imposed on me and declared by others to be my own (or that it should be my own just because ‘the vast majority’ are said, by a few proponents, to agree with it) – the current arguments about global warming come to mind again – one side shouting “Imminent danger” and “scientific consensus” and the other “Fraudulent manipulation of data”.

I think it essential that an umpire be able to distinguish between an objective and a subjective opinion and be able to make an honest subjective decision (based on evidence and the required criteria for an offence) when required to do so in a hockey match; that is a decision based on the actions seen and a literal interpretation of the wording of the Rules of Hockey, whatever other people may think about that interpretation. But of course most don’t think or make decisions at all, it’s done for them, and the criteria is not subjective, but objective:  the ball hit a leg so that ‘use’ of the body must be penalised without regard for subjective criterion (intention or advantage gained), because that is ‘the interpretation’ and what players expect (an irrelevance based on circular reasoning ). Umpires themselves should rid the game of such clueless application, not connive in the imposition of it.

Since writing this article I have come to consider the wider term ‘meme’ to be a suitable replacement for ‘intersubjectivity’ in the context of the regulation of hockey; see:-


May 28, 2017

“It is generally accepted…”


Perhaps I am no longer an isolated voice pointing out something that everybody else denies has happened or is happening, but I have been writing about the conflict between what I think is ‘generally accepted’ to be publicity pap “the emphasis on safety” “consideration for the safety of others” “playing responsibly”, and the realities of competitive hockey, for many years and have received much more abuse than praise for my pains.

If there was genuine concern about dangerous play and  player safety the Rules would be different: giving just two examples- 1) the Rule prohibiting the raising of the ball at another player would not have been (2004) deleted/transferred, ‘watered down’ to become a confused  Explanation of Rule 9.9 and a 5m limit added to it, and then be ignored (2008 Olympics) if such a raised ball was a shot at the goal.  2) Forcing, particularly the forcing of self-defence, which is never mentioned except as a lack of skill on the part of a player hit with the ball, would not have been deleted (2011) as an offence in itself.

I have to disagree with Krebsy’s presumption that much of the present conflict has the support of or was instigated by “the FIH”. What is “the FIH”? As far as the Rules of Hockey are concerned the term means both ‘a who’ and ‘a how’: it should mean the FIH Executive Committee.  There is a process for drafting and adopting a Rule proposal into Full Rule and if that process is not adhered to by the proper parties then that proposal, idea, opinion, call it what you will, is not and cannot be a Rule of Hockey. This fact does not appear to be generally understood. It does not matter a straw how FIH Umpires are applying what they think are Rules – if the application or interpretation they are applying is not printed in the rule-book or as is sometimes the case, even conflicts with what is in the Rules of Hockey – it is not a Rule.

The procedure demands that the FIH Rules Committee – no one else, no other body, no other person or group of people  – draft a proposed Rule and then submit it to the FIH Executive for approval. If the proposal is approved by the Executive (who may instead send it back to the Rules Committee for further work) it may then be included in the Rules of Hockey. This process often takes some years, as trials or Mandatory Experiments may be necessary before a decision to include a change to Full Rule can be reached. The FIH Rules Committee cannot draft and then approve a Rule on their own. The FIH Executive cannot both propose and then approve a Rule or a Rule amendment on their own; there is a separation of powers and both committees perform their tasks independently (I find it odd that any individual could be a member of both committees but this has happened). This system is slow but it works tolerably well.

But the official procedure is badly undermined by another part of “the FIH” the committee who has charge of the appointment and training of umpires The FIH Umpiring Committee, who are said to ‘liaise’ with the FIH Rules Committee on Rule proposals and on the application of Rules which have been approved by the Executive and are part of the Rules of Hockey.

Gingerbread mentions in his post above the opinion of a L2 (umpire) coach and of an FIH Umpire. He does not appear to understand that a dangerously played ball decision is usually entirely subjective – in other words the opinion solely of an umpire officiating the match – an un-involved L2 umpire coach or an FIH Umpire cannot, unless there is also a clear breach of an objective Rule criteria, offer a contrary opinion about a personal judgement made by any other umpire at any level i.e. say such a decision is wrong – at best they might say that they would not in the circumstances have made the same decision. (That such decisions are generally entirely subjective is I feel unsatisfactory, because they are often both technically wrong and unfair, but cannot be challenged. Umpires tend to see subjective decision making as a strength of the current system and vigorously defend their ability to make such decisions , I see it as a weakness.) It is telling that Gingerbread goes not to the Rules of Hockey but to the irrelevant opinions of more senior umpires (to what others are doing), which in the circumstances he describes have nothing at all to do with the Rules of Hockey .

I have had experience at a low level of the ‘generally accepted’ way of applying Rule, which has no Rule support, being demanded of me. During October 2009, in the period after the deletion of ‘gains benefit’ from Rule 9.11. I umpired a very one-sided match between a strong veterans team and a club 4XI which was a mixture of colts, vets and a few experienced players of 4th team standard in a club which ran six teams. The veterans won 12-0. That evening, without saying anything at all to me, the captain of the losing team complained to the County Umpiring Association that I had not penalised ball-body contact at all, allowing play to continue whenever it occurred i.e. I had not applied Rule 9.11 correctly.

The veterans team were not happy with my performance either, because it was very unusual and allowed them little in the way of the ‘breathers’ the award of  a free-ball provides, but because their team contained some experience umpires, they at least understood what I was doing – they also quickly understood that shoving the ball onto an opponent’s foot was not going to ‘win’ them a free ball and they were therefore obliged to beat opponents with speed and/or stick-skills or play a passing game: in the passing game they were far superior to their opponents.

The result of the complaint was a visit from an official from the Middlesex County Umpiring Association the following weekend. He informed me of the complaint and asked me what was going on and I informed him that I had applied Rule 9.11 exactly as it was (sic) currently written in the Rules of Hockey – the criterion for a ball-body contact offence at the time was intent or voluntarily made contact and there was no other.  (I have to say that at the time I though that the complete deletion of gains benefit was an error by the then FIH Hockey Rules Board and that in some instances it should have remained applicable (I have written in another article – – suggestions for a gains benefit clause for Rule 9.11), but the application of it in 2006, prior to the deletion, was a ‘generally accepted’ umpiring practice in which any ball-body contact was seen as the gaining of a benefit, which made a nonsense of having that criteria (as an exception to not an offence) at all – and the removal of that dumb ‘interpretation’, even if it meant removing the criteria, was a good thing because the ‘interpretation’ itself removed the criteria).  I was in 2009 however not in a position to impose ‘gains benefit’ at all (even if there was benefit gained by a ball-body contact- which was seldom) as the criteria was no longer in the Rule.

Having listened to what I had to say the County Official then said “Martin I don’t want you applying the Rules according to what is in the rule-book, I want you to umpire as other umpires are umpiring” (thereby exceeding his authority). I replied that  I could only do as other umpires were doing if what they were doing was in accord with what was given in the Rules of Hockey. I was never again appointed to umpire a match in Middlesex. I should add that having coached an international team and previously regularly umpired at First XI level, I was not utterly distraught at my ejection as an umpire at 4th team level (who would be?) but I was annoyed because of the reason for it.

That experience has some similarities to the dilemma top umpires are put in when told by FIH Tournament Directors or FIH Umpire Managers to take a certain line to particular instances (with what are supposed to be their own subjective judgements) like a ball raised into a player in front of the goal or a ball-foot contact by a defender in the defended circle. Do they apply the Rules of Hockey and risk not receiving any further appointments – even risk being downgraded – or do they comply with the required, completely unauthorised, inventions and achieve their aim of becoming “hugely experienced and highly respected FIH Umpires” ?

The ‘gains benefit’ saga is a prime example of a change being imposed in a way that was without any authority whatsoever. The history of this episode is one of the reasons I ‘dug my heels in’ when (in effect) told to comply with it.

Due to the ‘generally accepted’ way of applying ‘gains benefit’  prior to 2007, mentioned above, the FIH Rules Committee deleted that criteria for a ball-body contact offence in the Rules of Hockey issued in January 2007. In February 2007 Peter von Reth authored an ‘Official Interpretation’ on the FIH website in which he explained (without offering a rational explanation) that he and the Chairman of the FIH Rules Committee had agreed to the reinstatement of the ‘gains benefit’ clause and it would continue to be applied as it had been applied in 2006.

Here is the irrational explanation for the reversion that was offered:-

The 2005/6 Rules indicated that it was not an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player unless that player or their team benefits from this. However, as with other rules, this continues to be an offence if benefit is gained. Rule 9.11 should therefore continue to be applied taking into account any benefit gained by the player or their team.


Why is that statement irrational? Because “unless that player or their team benefits from this” means exactly the same as “if benefit is gained“, so the entire explanation offered is contained in the words “However” and “Therefore” and justified by “general discussion” and the unspecified feedback apparently received from various parties and a few National Associations, after the change to the Explanation of Rule 9.11. was made public.

The previous long-term disquiet about the way the Rule was being applied under the 2005/6 Rules of Hockey and those of previous years  – the reason for the change made by the FIH Rules Committee, active from Januray 2007, after the usual consultations with all parties when a change is to be proposed to the FIH Executive, had taken place, was just brushed aside.

This ‘no change’ action cannot have been the result of a legitimate procedure, not having been initiated by the FIH Rules Committee or approved by the FIH Executive and it is entirely possible that Peter von Reth, having been out-voted in the Rules Committee, simply hijacked the FIH website to impose his will.  On reading that ‘Official Interpretation’ my reaction, knowing that he had exceeded his authority, was “Over my dead body”.

Why didn’t the FIH Executive reprimand Peter von Reth and issue a counter-statement affirming their previous decision? I suppose for the sake of the appearance of unity (like a match umpire seeing a colleague make a horrible blunder but not intervening to correct it)  and the avoidance of loss of face for one of the most senior of the FIH officials, he was a member of the FIH Rules Committee and Chair of the Umpiring Committee at the time.

There was no unity: gains benefit did not reappear in a rule-book until 2016 – in the form “gains an advantage”, but for more than eight years umpires applied it as if it was part of a Rule in the Rules of Hockey.  The FIH Rules Committee and the FIH Umpiring Committee via Umpire Managers were using different versions of the Rules of Hockey and the latter were not applying the published version. Where did ‘the FIH’ stand on this? Who knows? There was a resounding silence but it is clear that in 2007 and later the FIH Hockey Rules Board (and post 2011 the renamed FIH Rules Committee) did not support the reinstatement of the ‘gains benefit’ clause. 

How many other ‘interpretations’ (inventions/distortions/subversions) are applied in a way similar to the way ‘gains benefit’ was generally applied between February 2007 and May 2015?   Quite a few (and without the dubious ‘benefit’ of being in any way declared an Official Interpretation).

Regrettably the fact that an FIH Umpire is seen to penalise or fail to penalise a particular action is not an indication that it is or is not in breach of a Rule of Hockey. “All FIH Umpires umpire this in this way“, an oft used justification for a particular decision (a Keely Dunn favourite), is not at all an assurance that “this way” is in compliance with the Rules of Hockey.

The statement “An ‘on target’ shot at goal cannot be dangerous play”, was first heard in public – from a television commentator – during Tournament play at the 2008 Olympics, where an emboldened Peter von Reth was the Tournament Director. There has been, as Krebsy has pointed out, no correction  to this statement (which was repeated by an umpire to a player during a match in the 2010 World Cup) issued by ‘the FIH’, so here we go again.

There has to be change to the current system. There are a far greater number of umpire managers than there are members of the FIH Rules Committee; perhaps it would be better if senior umpire managers were formed into a rules committee that acted in place of and in the same way as the present FIH Rules Committee? But then do we want the Rules of Hockey to be determined by umpires, who, as is generally accepted, know nothing at all about playing hockey? The present FIH Rules Committee has about the same number of umpires as it has former players. The latter, it is generally accepted, especially if they played at international level, previously knew nothing at all about the Rules of Hockey. These generalisations about the Rule and hockey knowledge of players and umpires respectively, although there is a grain of truth to them, are of course a nonsense, but so is much, even most, of what is now generally considered to be acceptable umpiring.

On the subject of nonsense we need not look much further than than these conflicting posts by nerd_is_the_word (NITW), a contributor to FHF.

The defender causes danger by positioning etc. was an argument for penalising the defender, if hit with the ball, initially advanced by Keely Dunn back in August 2006, when she first joined FHF. I ‘crossed swords’ with her over it on the forum at the time. Whether it was her own idea or a proposal given to her by her ‘FIH insider’ I don’t  know. NITW has obviously given this nonsense no further though, he just repeats it. He is clearly not in complete agreement with all that Kerbsy wrote, but with just the second sentence.

Has he cast me as a conspiracy theorist? Surely not, I have written history, but that there was a conspiracy, by a few FIH officials, to subvert a Rule of Hockey in February 2007, cannot be denied: but ‘the conspirators’ announced who some of them were the nature and purpose of the subversion and their conspiracy, at the time: conspiracies are supposed to be secret.

But then a few hours after his previous post NITW writes this:-


“lf l was defending, and had been hit in the chest, and the umpire told me that they didn’t see the lift but did see it hit me, I would be livid that the umpire had clearly seen a dangerous ball (he has seen it hit me in the chest) but will then be penalising me for being hit in the chest.”

Why should he be livid with the umpire for following a practice he himself has advocated – penalising a defender hit with the ball if he chooses to position to defend the goal?  – Well yes of course he should be livid in those circumstances; a dangerously played ball cannot reasonably result in penalty against a defender hit with it.  Completely agree with that NITW. The lad is clearly very confused and needs help. He even appears to believe, looking at a later post, that the FIH have issued a directive which they have not put in writing. Sorry mate – not in writing (and addressed to all National Associations), not a Directive from the FIH Executive.

March 31, 2017



Here is a nice bit of ambiguity highlighted in a ‘discussion’ between the owners of the tags redumpre, and Cardhappy, it’s about the umpire’s signal for a bully.

What is the ambiguity? Whether the hands are together moved upwards and then downwards alternately (with perhaps a touch at the top?) or one hand is moved up while the other is being moved down each hand being alternately moved up and then down- one hand being up when the other is down – but no contact. –

What does ‘alternately’ mean in the description given in the rule-book?

(I guess we can no longer accurately say “rule-book” now that we have a replacement apt – a development which makes me uneasy considering the way Rules have previously disappeared or been invented, with either the exact form of previous existence or the fact of invention being later denied. It’s more difficult to deny a printed document than an internet web page, a copy of which has not been printed out. I have always been uneasy about the fact that previous rule-books are not archived and readily accessible for comparison, we have only an incomplete ‘potted history’ of the Rules)

I have always used the latter method, but Cris Maloney (umpire is right, that signal is not similar to the required bully action that is being signalled – it’s nothing like it – but this signal method is the traditional practice and it is understood – hence the ‘blindness’ and the sarky criticism. I am ashamed to say that is why I used it, ashamed because I have been very critical of others for applying Rules in a particular way just because their peers do so – same as them, I just didn’t give it any thought – and thought is necessary each and ever time a decision is made.

Explaining things is not always easy – although not difficult in this case – but redumpire (David Elcock) seems to believe that by repeating the word ‘alternately’ and using bold text when doing so, he explains it and its use (the Englishman abroad speaking to a resident native, slowly and loudly in English) – common words and simple constructions of them have to be used i.e. language that is completely and identically understood by both parties.

This quote is attributed to Albert Einstein.

If you can’t explain it simply you don’t understand it well enough. although of course he did not say that, it has been ‘edited’ to make a more ‘catchy’ statement from what he did say. The original statement is likely to have been as from this report of a conversation with another scientist, recalled after Einstein’s death.

“All physical theories, their mathematical expressions apart, ought to lend themselves to so simple a description that even a child could understand them” Not nearly as ‘snappy’ (or simple) a statement.

This is also attributed to Einstein and I think is more likely to be accurately reported even if it isn’t grammatically correct  – it’s truncated (by Einstein, who’s mother language was not English) perhaps to avoid repetition of the word  “possible”( although “necessary” would have been a better word choice) .

Everything should be made as simple as possible but not simpler (than is necessary to enable complete understanding).

Richard Feynman came closer to the popular ‘quote’,  but he was probably paraphrasing Einstein. Feynman was asked by the Dean of Cornell University (where Feynman was a physics professor) to explain to the faculty why spin half-particles obey Femi-Dirac statistics (I don’t even understand the terms of the question although I have a vague idea what statistics are and have read a biography of Dirac). Feynman, no doubt correctly, thought that the explanation to the faculty would have to be pitched at undergraduate (or freshman) level and went off to prepare his lecture. A couple of days later he contacted the Dean and reportedly (recalled after his death) said ” I couldn’t reduce the subject to freshman level. That means we don’t really understand it.”

Einstein by “a child” possibly meant a very smart twelve year old, rather than the six year old mentioned in related quotes from others. Six year old children are unlikely to have the vocabulary necessary to follow even fairly simple explanations of complex situations and – if the theories of the educational psychiatrist Piaget are accepted – are not sufficiently mentally developed to form the necessary abstract concepts from all that is said to them: concepts that even a quite dull adult (a barmaid or a grandmother are the usual adults picked on in other quotes) would probably be able to construct from simple language. The average eight year old would, quite rightly, take great exception at this, but the definition of a moron is a adult person (over twenty-one) with the mental capacity of a child aged between eight and twelve. (It is a very old and probably very inaccurate, definition).

Where am I going with this? I have been reflecting on what was said to me by a hockey coach as we stood watching the game between Surbiton HC and Wimbledon HC last Sunday – and thinking about explanation and understanding. I repeatedly asked him why certain incidents played out in front of us were not penalised as obstruction. His ‘explanation’ was that this was the way the Rule is interpreted. When I asked him to explain the interpretation, he could not. He admitted that it was contrary to what was given in the Rule and not how the Rule used to be applied – although he agreed that there is no reasonable explanation for any change to the interpretation of obstruction in the last twenty-five years – “but that (what we were seeing) is just how it is.

(in fact the ‘new interpretation’ of the Obstruction Rule written into the back of the rule-book under Rule Interpretations, post 1992 was almost entirely deleted in 2004. All that remains of it in the current Explanation of Rule 9.12 is the incomplete stand alone statement that a stationary receiver of the ball may be facing in any direction (why not?). Everything else in the interpretation was already in the Rule (or other Rules) prior to 1992 or could be deduced or inferred from them – there was no change to the Obstruction Rule beyond the introduction of a very specific leeway given to a receiver of the ball while receiving and controlling it (in other words the “new interpretation” introduced in 1992, was an exception to the Rule, not a change to the interpretation of what was (and is) obstructive play by, for example, a player in possession of the ball – that did not change in 1992 (was not changed at that time by the FIH Hockey Rules Board) and has not been changed since, either by the Rules Board or by the (renamed) FIH Rules Committee. We seem now however to be floundering along on what officials can remember of the deleted interpretation, because they will not let go of it, despite the fact that it is deleted and was anyway very poorly written by someone who obviously did not understand the game. This deleted interpretation, having demanded conditions for a tackle attempt that were impossible to comply with, then concluded, in contradiction :- ” However, umpires should note certain forms of obstruction which are often incorrectly overlooked. In particular, preventing a legitimate tackle (my bold) by intentionally (introducing for the first time intention to obstruct, which is not in the Rule) shielding the ball with the body or leg is obstruction.
Stick obstruction and interference is prohibited; no player may strike at or interfere with an opponent’s stick. The player with the ball may not use the stick to shield or protect the ball from a legitimate tackle.
The mix of fact (written here in blue text) and fiction which was presented in this interpretation was very confusing.

preventing a legitimate tackle  by shielding the ball with the stick, body or leg is obstruction.

In view of that statement, a child seeing current hockey as it is played and officiated, could point and ask “Why is thathow it is“?” and expect that those officiating, coaching or playing the game to be able to explain (and properly justify) what is now going on – but they cannot or will not do so – we get a stonewalling “That is the interpretation.” rather than an explanation.

I was not asking for an explanation of the behaviour of protons or electrons, for which the scientific ‘explanation’ seems to be “that is just how it is” (that is physical behaviour associated with particle theory combined with conflicting behaviour associated with wave theory, which seems to be illogical, and is thus far unexplained), but I was asking for a justification for players using obstructive tactics (attempting to shield the ball past opponents) and umpires  responding to these obstruction offences in a way that is directly opposite to the way a reasonable reading of the wording of the Rule , using common understanding of the simple language used in the Rule, would lead any rational person to expect the game to be played and the Obstruction Rule applied.

Maybe the language isn’t as simple as it needs to be, or more words are needed: after all “alternatively” isn’t a complex concept, but clearly additional words (about the hands) would give clarity to the over-simplified instructions concerning the bully signal – I don’t think that ‘obstruction’ or ‘prevention’ are any more complicated as concepts than ‘alternately’. That said simplification is not an easy undertaking – it is surprising how much is assumed to be well known by the person an action is being explained to.

Redumpire and Cardhappy could (and should) have recognised that without clear indication of how the hands were being referred to, there is ambiguity in the use of the word “alternately”, but that would have deprived them of the opportunity of a ‘put down’.  The subject isn’t important enough to justify the unthinking, unreasonable and rude responses and the bad feeling generated by them. The question from Cris Maloney might be considered trivial but it was not unreasonable to ask it and also to expect a polite and considered reply. According to the novelist and satirist Swift, the inhabitants of Lilliput and Blefuscu went to war over the importance of which end of a boiled egg to open – the responses given to question s about obstruction are as inexplicable. The same kind of responses are made (or refused) to questions about the dangerous shot at the goal, the penalising of ball-body contact, and the interpretation of “attempting”.

All Fools Day was the following day but they got an early start.

I like Cris Maloney’s response, a few days later, which mentions the ‘broken windmill’ signal now given to indicate a 23m free ball to the attacking team when the ball goes out of play over the base-line off a defender’s stick. Why can’t the powers that be get it into their heads that they themselves have deleted what used to be called a long corner and more recently (a massively important name change when it was made !!?? ) a corner, and replaced it with a restart on the 23m line. There is no good reason why the signal should not be the umpire’s right hand pointed with extended arm directly towards/over the base-line (some umpires are already using this signal) There is no need to point to the corner of the pitch, in fact to do so is ridiculous – to be required to do so, absurd.

There is now no such thing as a ‘corner’, but, going back to the match I was watching, ball shielding, with stick or body, to delay or prevent an opponent, who is intent on playing at the ball, directly doing so, when they would otherwise be immediately able to do so, is (still) usually an offence called obstruction – in only two situations should an exception to this Rule be made.

Ask any umpire what these two situations are  – and he or she is likely to be dumbfounded by the question, but they still won’t penalise what is obstruction when they see it. Many of them are unable to recognise obstructive situations – having been told and having accepted that they do not exist or, as one FHF moderator (Diligent) would have it,  “It (obstruction) occurs once, if at all, in about three hundred matches“. I’d say that those figures would be about right if the topic was intentional use of the body to stop or deflect the ball, but in most matches accidental or forced ball-foot/leg contact is the reason most of the  free balls are awarded and the reason for the majority of penalty-corners ‘won’.