Archive for ‘Obstruction Rule’

October 18, 2017

Field Hockey Rules. Confusing coaching for umpires

The video clip below is part of an umpire coaching video presented by umpirehockey.com. The coaching video runs contrary to the Rules of Hockey and reminds me of the terms ‘Doublethink’ and ‘Doublespeak’ as used in George Orwell’s novel ‘1984′

Before looking at what advice and instruction the 2017 Umpire Manager’s Briefing for FIH Umpires in Tournaments (the ‘UMB’) and the 2017 Rules of Hockey give us about the Obstruction Rule, take a look at the video and determine what it is that the player in possession of the ball is trying to do. What is her intention and do her actions achieve that intention? Then ask:- Are her actions and the intentions that drive them, in compliance with or contrary to the intent and purpose of the Obstruction Rule as given in the FIH published Rules of Hockey?

 Advice from the 2017 UMB (with my added comment )

Obstruction

•Are the players trying to play the ball?  (Is there an opponent of the player in possession of the ball demonstrating an intent to tackle for the ball in the incidents shown in the video?  Yes.)

•Is there a possibility to play the ball?  (Are players attempting to tackle for the ball within playing reach of the ball and in a position of balance from which a tackle could be made? Yes. Players who are intent on tackling for the ball but who are facing or reaching or moving in the wrong direction and so have no possibility of playing the ball until they recover to a balanced position cannot be obstructed)

•Is there active movement to prevent the playing of the ball? (Yes) (The word ‘active’ is here redundant)

•Be aware of professional use of the body to illegally block opponents from the ball, as well players trying to demonstrate obstructions by lifting their sticks dangerously over opponents’ heads. (I am not sure why these two diverse statements are contained in one sentence clause. Distraction? In the video there is use of the body (nothing to do with ‘professional’) by the ball holder in the set up scenario, to prevent the defenders from playing at the ball, but no player lifts a stick over the head of another player; the described stick lifting action is unrelated to illegal use of the body to block off an opponent on a path to the ball, which is seen in the video clip)

•Stick obstruction is a ‘hot issue’ for players. Judge it fairly and correctly and blow only if you are 100% sure

 

Back in 2003, before the reconstruction of the Rules of Hockey handbook in 2004, there was a section in the back of it entitled Rules Interpretations. This was part of it:- (my comment added)

Umpires should be aware of players who are in possession of the ball who:

•back into an opponent; (back into the playing reach of an opponent who is demonstrating an intent to play at the ball)

•turn and try to push past an opponent; (make physical contact with an opponent while moving with and shielding the ball)

•shield the ball with body, leg or stick and stand still when under pressure; (when an opponent is trying to play at the ball – advice which has vanished)

•drag the ball near their back foot when moving down the side-line or along the back-line; (leading the ball with the body to shield it from an opponent – this advice has also vanished. Now that these two clauses have been ‘clarified and simplified’ players commonly shield the ball while in a stationary position or ‘crab’ along a line while ‘protecting’ the ball – and do so without penalty, umpires are no longer watching for these obstruction offences.

A more pernicious result of the disappearance of advice to umpires concerning stationary ball shielding and ‘crabbing’ post 2004 is shown in the video, it is the bizarre notion that if a turn to shield the ball from an approaching tackler is completed before the tackler is within playing reach of the ball – then, no matter how hard a tackler then attempts to reach for and play at the ball (but without breaching Rule 9.13 – contact), there can be no obstruction. This ‘interpretation’ – of what? – turns the Obstruction Rule into a farce.)

•shield the ball with the stick to prevent a legitimate tackle. (I have recently seen it asserted on an Internet hockey forum that stick obstruction cannot occur if the stick of the player in possession is in contact with the ball – this assertion is utter nonsense and is another farcical interpretation – of what?)

 

Exactly the same advice/instruction given above was written into the 2003 ‘UMB’

 

Instruction from the 2017 Rules of Hockey with comment on interpretation. The Rule Interpretations (presented at the back of the handbook) and the Rule Guidance for Players and Umpires, provided with each Rule, was combined and subsumed in 2004 into what was termed Explanation (it is the part written in italic script beneath each Rule Proper, which is presented in regular text)

Continuous ‘Clarification and Simplification’ since 1993 (and especially in and after 2004) led to alteration of the wording of many clauses and to the disappearance of others.

(I think of this ‘Clarification and Simplification’ as Obscurantism and Vandalism. Cynical alterations to the Rule while continuing to declare that the Rules have not changed, only the interpretation of them has, which is an impossibility. One cannot change the interpretation of words, just as one cannot change the wording of a Rule, without changing the meaning and therefore the application of the Rule (unless replacing these words with exact synonyms, which has not happened). Changing the application of a Rule changes its intent and purpose i.e. there is a change to the Rule.

This “No change to the Rule only to the Interpretation of it” has root in what was in fact an exception to the Rule, which was introduced in 1993 as a new interpretation of the Obstruction Rule. The ‘new interpretation’ was that a player receiving the ball could not commit an obstruction offence while in the act of receiving and controlling the ball (thus doing away with the need to make lead runs to get away from markers in order to receive the ball, without immediately being penalised for obstruction as the ball was received while an attempt to tackle for it was being made by an opponent). As the Rule did not change in any other way i.e. what was considered to be obstruction (the criteria) in 1992 remained the criteria for obstruction in 1994 and continues to do so to the present day, what was called ‘the new interpretation’ was and is clearly an exception to the Rule and this was not and is not a change to the interpretation of obstruction – which has not changed significantly since the 1940’s. There have been no other ‘new interpretations’ to the Obstruction Rule introduced since 1993.

Once, however, ‘the door was opened’ to changes of interpretation without there being any change to the Rule, ‘interpretation’ took on a ‘life’ of its own, which was independent of what the FIH Rules Committee provided as Rule in the Rules of Hockey – and not confined to the Obstruction Rule (FIH Umpires began inventing ‘Rules’ – even competed with each other to do so).Interpretation’ of this sort has plagued the application of the Rules concerning a dangerously played ball and the aerial ball – we have nonsense about ‘on target shots at goal’ and ‘raised shots that are missing the goal’ and about a deflection not being an aerial ball (literally ‘not a ball in the air’ and not possibly ‘a falling ball’ when any raised ball must at some point become a falling ball – unless Newton was wrong) – and such ‘interpretation’ (wilful blindness) has destroyed the application of the Obstruction Rule.

 

Rules of Hockey 2017.      Obstruction. (with my added comment)

9.12 Players must not obstruct an opponent who is attempting to play the ball.

Players obstruct if they:  (the following criteria are incomplete and also require clarification).

–back into an opponent   (a player in possession backing into the playing reach of an opponent while shielding the ball)

–physically interfere with the stick or body of an opponent  (a player in possession of the ball moving – including backing in – to cause any physical contact with an opponent or the opponent’s stick)

–shield the ball from a legitimate tackle with their stick or any part of their body.  (This applies whether the player in possession is stationary or moving)

A stationary player receiving the ball is permitted to face in any direction. (The explanation for the existence of this oddly worded remnant of the ‘new interpretation was given above – it does not apply to the action seen in the video clip because the player in possession of the ball is not in any sense or at any time a player receiving the ball  – just, incidentally, as the attacking player in a shootout is never a receiver of the ball and therefore has no entitlement or excuse to shield the ball from the goalkeeper when within the goalkeeper’s playing reach)

A player with the ball is permitted to move off with it in any direction except bodily into an opponent or into a position between the ball and an opponent who is within playing distance of the ball and attempting to play it.

The clarification added as an extension to the clause (bold text from the word ‘or’) in 2009 – means that a player in possession of the ball is not permitted to move to position between the ball and an opponent who is within playing distance of the ball and attempting to play it – but also – see above – a player who is in possession of the ball cannot move to position between the ball and a closing opponent and then remain stationary (or near stationary i.e.not moving away to put and keep the ball beyond the reach of any opponent who is trying to position to make a tackle)) while shielding the ball as that opponent moves to within playing distance of the ball and attempts to play at it. Allowing such play would confounds the purpose of the Obstruction Rule – as it is now confounded by the presentation made in the above video.

Removing advice to umpires from the UMB and the rule-book or presenting contrary video coaching does not alter the Obstruction Rule – A player shall not obstruct an opponent who is attempting to play the ball. The fact that an opponent who is attempting to play at the ball was not obstructed as a turn to shield the ball was made, but a second or two later, is irrelevant, there is still a breach of the Rule if that opponent closes and is then attempting to play at the ball and is being prevented from doing so by a body blocking/ball shielding action of a player in possession of the ball. Preventing an opponent achieving a position from which a tackle may be made by movement to block that opponent’s positioning or by movement to maintain shielding of the ball from an opponent who is then within playing distance of the ball is obstruction. That is so even if there is no moving off with the ball by the player in possession of it. i.e. the player in possession remains stationary. Moving the ball or moving with the ball is not a permit to continue to shield the ball from an opponent who would otherwise be able to play at it. A player shall not obstruct an opponent who is attempting to play the ball.

A player who runs in front of or blocks an opponent to stop them legitimately playing or attempting to play the ball is obstructing (this is third party or shadow obstruction). This also applies if an attacker runs across or blocks defenders (including the goalkeeper or player with goalkeeping privileges) when a penalty corner is being taken.

As observed in a previous article, the wording of this clause would be improved (be clearer) if the words ‘may also be’ replaced ‘is’ – in a way that is different to the way ‘also’ has recently been added to Rule 9.8.

A player who runs in front of or blocks an opponent to stop them legitimately playing or attempting to play the ball is obstructing (this may also be third party or shadow obstruction). This also applies if an attacker runs across or blocks defenders (including the goalkeeper or player with goalkeeping privileges) when a penalty corner is being taken.

Cris Maloney of Umpirehockey.com is already preaching that Obstruction must be a physical contact offence – that there can be no obstruction without physical contact.  Players have been getting away with Obstruction combined with physical contact for a considerable time, so I suppose he is trying to catch up with what he sees European, Australian, Asian, South American and African teams (the whole world) doing, but it still seems strange to see this idea coached and promoted in a video as if it complied with the Rules of Hockey – because it does not. The effort to keep up with changing interpretations is futile anyway; the more leeway that is granted in the ‘interpretation’ of what should be straightforward and simple instructions the more that will be (is) demanded – and then imposed, simply because it is what high level umpires are doing – that players regularly combine ball shielding with physical contact without penalty is a fact of modern hockey.

Some of these changing interpretations change with dizzying speed. In 2004 the Rule:- ‘A player shall not raise the ball at another player’ was ‘downgraded’ in the rewrite to become part of the Explanation of Rule 9.9 (with a 5m limit added to it); by 2008 it was being declared that an ‘on target’ shot at goal could not be considered dangerous play even if the ball was raised at high velocity high into a close opponent – an opposite application in only four years, which had nothing whatsoever to do with anything that the FIH Rules Committee had published, and was therefore an impossibility, but an impossibility that existed and was almost unchallenged by ‘the hockey community’. Why do hockey writers/reporters confine their writing to match reports and to history and ignore blatant corruption of the game?

Despite the coaching given in the above video clip, shielding the ball in any way that prevents or delays an opponent playing at it directly, when they are trying to do so and would otherwise (if the ball were not shielded from them) be able to do, is an obstruction offence.  That may not be a simple sentence but I trust the meaning of it is perfectly clear.

‘A player must not obstruct an opponent who is attempting to play at the ball’ is a simple enough Rule statement, unfortunately its meaning has, quite deliberately, been made unclear – by the muddying of the ‘interpretation’ of ‘obstruct’ and of ‘attempting’ – by those who for their own reasons, which I cannot pretend to understand, want hockey to be played in a way that is similar to the way soccer is played. I don’t understand this because there is no possibility of a non-contact sport, which hockey is (and I hope will remain), being played in the same manner as a contact sport, which soccer (Association football) is. The fact that physical contact is permitted in soccer would make the introduction of an obstruction rule for soccer, similar to the Obstruction Rule in hockey, farcical. Only what hockey umpires would recognize as an impeding (holding) offences and third party offences are practical for application in soccer. In the same way, because hockey is a non-contact sport, not having a properly applied Obstruction Rule results in farcical situations in hockey.

Those who want to combine the games of soccer and hockey (and some elements of the game of rugby) could instead attach themselves to hurling – I wish they would. Hurling is the fastest and without doubt the most violent ball-stick team field sport in existence, what an attraction (marketing opportunity) for those who are busy at the moment trying to destroy the game of hockey by selling ‘excitement’.

These people are trying to ‘dumb down’ the skills that playing hockey requires, by promoting the allowing of resort to obstruction and physical contact to maintain possession of the ball – and incidentally making the game much more dangerous to play by advocating the degrading of the dangerously played ball Rules (increasing the number of penalty corners awarded). This does not make hockey significantly more exciting or spectacular and it will not draw to hockey ever larger numbers of players or spectators. Those who believe that doing away with the skills required of players to elude opponents when in possession of the ball, will attract and retain increasing numbers of either players or spectators to hockey are deluding themselves. High levels of stick/ball skills, speed, footwork and great ball passing skills, which are combined to get the better of opponents, are the real attractions of the game.

 

Advertisements
October 14, 2017

Field Hockey Rules. Misjudgement of Timing and Distance.

http://fieldhockeyforum.com/threads/you-make-the-call-xvi.44122/

A video question uploaded to this Internet hockey forum.

The speed of the action combined with the small scale of a video viewing makes a decision difficult. Repeats and slow motion (not available to a match umpire) help to sort it out. The umpire (if mobile and alert) has the advantages of being able to choose the viewing position and a close, life size view of the action.

The attacker seems to have been unaware of:-

A player with the ball is permitted to move off with it in any direction except bodily into an opponent or into a position between the ball and an opponent who is within playing distance of the ball and attempting to play it

which is part of the Explanation given with Rule 9.12 Obstruction.

That means that a player, having received the ball i.e who is in possession of the ball cannot then move to position between the ball and an opponent who is within playing distance of the ball and attempting to play it.

By the time the attacker had control of the ball and had begun her turn to shield it from the approaching goalkeeper, the goalkeeper was within playing distance of the ball.

The attacker’s mistake may be the result of this kind of erroneous coaching, which is being provided in the USA – part of the video shows players taking up such ball shielding positions (from a side-line restart) and being advised that what they are doing is not obstruction – when it most certainly is:-

Lest it be though I always think there is obstruction or that it is always, when penalised, correctly penalised, here is an example where obstruction was called and I am not at all sure the call was correct – and I would certainly here have awarded a card to the defending tackler even if awarding a free to his team for obstruction by the attacker. The defender’s pushing action was deliberate and the obstruction called not as obviously a foul as the obstruction of the goalkeeper in the first video above. Did the tackler at any time get his own goal-side of and in front of the ball? That is not easy to see from the video camera angle – but if he didn’t he wasn’t obstructed and a penalty stroke with yellow card should have been awarded.

I watched the match on video and as far as I can recall this was the only occasion on which that umpire awarded a penalty for an obstruction offence – and there was no shortage of these offences which were very clear and which he could and should have penalised.
.
.

There has been no progress on three major issues The dangerously played ball, Obstruction and Ball-body contact, in the last thirty years. If anything even the fundamental principles necessary to an understanding of the intent and application of these Rules has been badly eroded – even completely lost. This loss seems to have begun around 1995 and accelerated greatly after 2004. Those dates coincide with the two major rewrites of the Rules of Hockey, but things have got really crazy since 2008 – that was about the time the FIH Umpiring Committee starting producing the umpire coaching videos and interpretations presented on dartfish.com. A few of the ‘Interpretations of the action’ that are presented are okay, but that is nowhere near good enough, they should all be flawless, not riddled, as they are, with error and omission. 

I wrote critiques of many of those interpretations, particularly those about the self-pass, ball in the air and obstruction. The response from whoever within the FIH was responsible, was to block my facility to download the coaching videos directly from the darfish website – and only that. A minor inconvenience to me, but a major failure of communication and a lack of response, on their part, to the valid criticisms made. None of the flawed ‘Interpretation of the action’, some of which conflict with each other, have been either amended (corrected) or removed and replaced.

September 3, 2017

Field hockey Rules: Positioning between an opponent and the ball.

Second goal for Netherlands in Women’s Euro Nations Final 2017 Belgium v Netherlands

Obstruction. Rule 9.12 Explanation (part)

Originally (1993) this was part of Rule Interpretation which was framed to instruct a receiver of the ball to move away with the ball from opponents (or pass it away)  immediately it had been controlled.

Current wording

A player with the ball is permitted to move off with it in any direction except bodily into an opponent or into a position between the ball and an opponent who is within playing distance of the ball and attempting to play it.

Clarification.

A player with the ball is NOT PERMITTED to move to position between the ball and an opponent who is within playing distance of the ball and attempting to play it.

any directiondoes NOT include a direction of movement which will cause obstructive positioning – such positioning is specifically excluded – “except“.

The BEL #2 player was obstructed and a free ball should have been awarded to the BEL team for this offence.

August 7, 2017

Field Hockey Rules: Pictures and words

Edited 11th August 2017

It is most peculiar how something which is just an oft repeated personal opinion (which, in my view, is mistaken) becomes something “we” have established.

There is a great deal of academic and scientific interest in ‘precisely nothing’ (an acceptable definition of ‘nothing’ has been avidly sought for years) when all the time all these people had to do was to look at a photograph of a hockey match in progress. But, sadly, a photograph of an incident during a hockey game is not picture of precisely nothing and one can ‘tell’ a great many things from a photograph.

redumpire began dismissing photographic evidence before it became possible to embed video clips into posts (and video clips were always, in his opinion, selected to portray a ‘slant’ – of course they are, but the fact that videos show that a Rule has not been applied in particular incidents, does not mean it usually was properly applied by that umpire – or others – in other similar incidents. An absence of evidence could be said to be precisely nothing. I would be delighted if someone could post a video clip showing an umpire correctly penalising a ball-holder for obstruction, but it has to occur in a videoed match before a video of it can exist).

I prefer the saying “A picture is worth a thousand words” It is relatively easy to demonstrate that the wording of Rule, or the interpretation of the wording of a Rule, is being flouted by showing pictures and videos. It is true that a reasonable hypothesize about what happened just prior to and/or just after a photographed moment may have to be made, but that does not mean a silly wild guess is necessary, but that intelligent speculation is required,  and that must be based on experience and what is seen in the picture. In the matter of body contact (which is what the above remark from redumpire was about) and many cases of obstruction, a reasonable deduction can be made from the positions and obvious balances of the players – and any obvious physical contact.

For example, it is obvious from the picture to the left  (by looking at the ball holder’s  feet and knees) in which direction he is moving and where his next step will position him relative to the player trying to make a tackle. It is also obvious that the defender is within playing reach of the ball and is demonstrating an intention to play at it. In fact an obstruction offence (with leg and stick) is already occurring and an umpire need not wait for the ball holder (in this case a forward attacker) to be fully positioned, bodily between the defender and the ball (blocking him off completely) – as he will do, before calling the offence.

This is not just guesswork – like ‘find the ball’ contests usually are – it is deduction. The attacker’s balance dictates his next movement, he cannot next lift his left foot off the ground, he must first place his right foot on the ground, and to do that he needs to complete his step to his right. One could say that the attacker may not be going to move to the right with the ball, he will plant his right foot and then may move (turn) to his left; his stick position indicates this is an easy possibility, he will nonetheless obstruct the defender, already has done so, with the positioning seen in the picture (see Rule Explanation below). Did he reach that position legally? It’s hard to see how he could have done.

All but one of the following pictures shows an incident of obstruction, none of them were penalised and none of the original captions to the photographs mentioned obstruction , that would be very ‘old fashioned’.

The right side picture in the middle of the page above, shows an obstructing player (in red) who has not prevented a tackle, the ball has been knocked away from him by the defender. but he will no doubt continue to obstruct the tackler and may regain possession of the ball while doing so.

In the picture bottom right the CAN attacker makes contact with the BRA defender, with an elbow to her face and a hip to her arm, when turning into her just outside the circle: It might as well have been a soccer match for all the notice taken, by the CAN player, of the Rules concerning obstruction and physical contact. The aim of making hockey similar to soccer has been achieved, but no good will come of it.

Interpretation of the actions seen in the above photographs must be slanted to convey what is seen.

And now the wording of the Rule and an interpretation of the Explanation of Application provided in the rule-book, or rule-apt.

[I see that the recently released apt is going to be updated automatically – that is very worrying; the ‘glanced at once’ rule-book in an umpire’s bag had the merit of not changing after he or she had skimmed it. The days when the Rules Committee – the HRB – met once a year to discuss changes to the Rules were very frustrating because the process of change was so slow, but the possibility that the Rules may be ‘updated’ (reinterpreted) almost weekly, gives the impression of a lack of forward planning and proper consideration for the consequences of any previous change (to interpretation not to Rule), that may be made, (there is still a procedure for Rule change which must be observed). The ability to ‘update’ interpretation at any time facilitates Double-think and Doublespeak].

The present Obstruction Rule

9.12 Players must not obstruct an opponent who is attempting to play the ball.
Players obstruct if they :

– back into an opponent
– physically interfere with the stick or body of an opponent
– shield the ball from a legitimate tackle with their stick or any part of their body.


A stationary player receiving the ball is permitted to face in any direction.


A player with the ball is permitted to move off with it in any direction except bodily into an opponent or into a position between the ball and an opponent who is within playing distance of the ball and attempting to play it.


A player who runs in front of or blocks an opponent to stop them legitimately playing or attempting to play the ball is obstructing (this is third party or shadow obstruction). This also applies if an attacker runs across or blocks defenders (including the goalkeeper or player with goalkeeping privileges) when a penalty corner is being taken.

The Rule does not tell us what obstruction is. So here is a common sense definition:-

Obstruction is illegally preventing an opponent playing at the ball when, but for the illegal action, that opponent would have been able to play at it.

The Rule then outlines the illegal actions that cause obstruction to occur

– back into an opponent. This means that a player while in possession of the ball cannot back into the playing reach of an opponent who is demonstrating an intent to play at the ball – that is illegal (see explanation below).

physically interfere with the stick or body of an opponent.  Besides Rule 9.13, which prohibits illegal (contact) tackling, there are two other Rules (9.3 and 9.4) which forbid any physical contact with an opponent, so it is fairly safe to assume that this prohibition refers to physical contact by a player in possession of the ball,  by for example, backing into physical contact with an opponent, thus causing an obstruction, or obliging an opponent to give way to avoid physical contact, again an obstruction, because that prevents the opponent making a tackle attempt. These two points were at one time emphasized in the instruction/guidance about what a player, who received the ball, then could and could not do ( or previously, was obliged to do) – nowadays that is not very clear.


A stationary player receiving the ball is permitted to face in any direction. This has been badly put. What is a fact and what is meant is that a player when receiving the ball may be facing in any direction, because, when a player is receiving and controlling the ball, the Obstruction Rule is suspended, it does not apply to this player.

It does not matter whether the receiving player is stationary or is moving at the time the ball is received. ”Stationary player” is a remnant of a previous version of Rule Guidance which pointed out that a receiving player could not obstruct even if stationary when receiving the ball. This needed to be pointed out, because prior to this change a receiving player would be obliged, if closely marked, to make a lead run to get sufficiently far away from a marker (beyond his or her playing reach) to receive the ball without being immediately penalised for obstruction as the ball was received. (This guidance was later ‘misread’ to create the invention that a stationary player could not be guilty of obstruction when in possession of the ball – the opposite of what the Rule Guidance indicated).

The ‘new interpretation’, introduced after 1992/3, which was in fact not a different interpretation of obstruction (what constituted obstruction did not change – and still has not changed) but an exception to the Rule: it relieved a player receiving the ball from the task of creating the space previously necessary to do so. (There was a lot of talk immediately after the introduction of the ‘new interpretation’ (the exception) of a receiving player being used as a high pivot in the style of basketball or soccer, immediately ‘bouncing’ the ball back to supporting and overlapping attackers – no one envisaged the static blocking or backing into the opponent’s circle while shielding the ball, that now takes place – it was simply inconceivable. It should still be seen as an unacceptable action i.e. considered contrary to Rule – but generally isn’t)

What a receiving player had to do once the ball was received and controlled (a very brief time in high level hockey) was previously set out, but like A stationary player receiving the ball is permitted to face in any direction, what was previously known as Rule Guidance has been ‘simplified’ (but not clarified), so that it is no longer understood, and is also unrecognizable as a reconstruction of the previous Rule Guidance (rewriting for simplification and clarification should not change the meaning and original purpose of an interpretation, it should do what it says, make the existing interpretation clear by expressing it more simply)

A player with the ball is permitted to move off with it in any direction except bodily into an opponent.   Originally this clause began Having received the ball the receiver must pass the ball away or must move away in any direction except bodily into an opponent. ”Away” meaning the ball had to be passed away immediately or the receiver had to immediately move, to put and keep the ball beyond the playing reach of opponents, (or evade any opponent who was chasing the ball, using stick-work and footwork skills, but without shielding the ball while doing so). Umpires were advised to watch for players who stand still and shield the ball when under pressure (so much for the impossibility of obstructing if stationary when in possession). Shielding a ball along a line and turning into an opponent were other listed actions to be watched for.

The fact that a player in possession of the ball cannot shield it with stick or body to obstruct an opponent, means that a receiver, having controlled the ball, should still move away at once to take the ball beyond the playing reach of any competing opponent.  But the current  ”is permitted to move off” does not convey anything of the sort (the ‘clarification’, in a two step process, going via may move away ‘muddied’ what had originally been a clear instruction must move away. Compare “is permitted to move off” with “must move away” Is the first (the current Explanation) a simplification and clarification of the second (the original Guidance) ? Do they mean the same thing?. No and no.

In 2009 there was a clarification of the first criteria given above  back into an opponent. The wording or (move) into a position between the ball and an opponent who is within playing distance of the ball and attempting to play it. was added to give the current clause. This made it clear that it is a position between the ball and an opponent that must not be moved into (and that physical contact is therefore not necessary for there to be an obstruction offence). In other words (to repeat) a player cannot legally back or turn into a position between the ball and his or her opponent i.e. into the playing reach of an opponent – nor of course can a player in possession of the ball legally remain, while either moving or stationary and while shielding the ball, in a position between the ball and an opponent who is within playing distance of the ball and demonstrating an intent to play at the ball. (Demonstrating an intent to play at the ball is superior wording from a previous version of Guidance, which I have borrowed for this article to explain the Rule as it now is – this phrase ought to be restored to give clarity to the Rule as the phase ‘attempting to tackle’ is used as an excuse not to apply the Rule when a tackle attempt has illegally been made impossible).

Moving the ball from side to side or slow ‘weaving’ of the body while dribbling to maintain a shielding position is non compliant if the ball is still within the playing reach of an opponent, but cannot be played at, because it is shielded from that opponent with either stick or body. That is if the direct path to the ball for an opponent is obstructed by a ball holder and that prevents an opponent, who is trying to play at the ball from doing so, there is a breach of the Obstruction Rule. Not a lot of people know that, as Eric and Ernie (the comedians, Morcombe and Wise, famous in the UK) used to say.

The last clause:- A player who runs in front of or blocks an opponent to stop them legitimately playing or attempting to play the ball is obstructing (this is third party or shadow obstruction). This also applies if an attacker runs across or blocks defenders (including the goalkeeper or player with goalkeeping privileges) when a penalty corner is being taken.

is very close to the entire Obstruction Rule as it was written before the 1950’s. It unfortunately mixes and muddles third-party obstruction and obstruction by a tackler – which were all that were considered at the time – with, the currently more prevalent obstruction by a player in possession of the ball, so it needs some clarification. Re-positioning of the word also helps, as does extending the list of scenarios in which obstructions occur. 

A player who runs in front of or blocks an opponent to stop them legitimately playing or attempting to play the ball is obstructing (this may also be third party or shadow obstruction). This applies if an attacker runs across or blocks defenders (including the goalkeeper or player with goalkeeping privileges) during a shootout, when a penalty corner is being being taken or when a tackle attempt is made.

But more work is needed on the above clause; third-party obstruction probably needs a separate clause, as does obstructive tackling.(i have written a separate article with suggestion for a rewrite of the Obstruction Rule

https://martinzigzag.wordpress.com/2015/10/31/field-hockey-rulebook-rewrite-rule-9-12-obstruction/

There are only two forms of body obstruction (1) running between an opponent and the ball to block the opponent’s path to the ball. This is often carried out as a forehand tackle, generally from behind and from the opponent’s left or as a ‘third-party’ blocking action (from any direction) to allow a team-mate to take possession of the ball, or (2) the more recent development, rarely seen prior to 1993; an ongoing ball shielding action, maintained to prevent an opponent attempting a legal tackle. Form (1) is generally well umpired (although there were some startling exceptions during the Rio Olympics). Form (2) is generally ignored, sometimes even when combined with physical contact. When there is physical contact during an obstructing action is is generally the defender who is penalised – even when entirely innocent (like the innocence of the stationary BRA defender in the picture commented about above).

It’s a very simple Rule – so simple that it is difficult to avoid repetition when explaining it being carried out by a player who is in possession of the ball.  If a player is compelled to ‘go around’ (or try to go around) an opponent in possession of the ball, or an otherwise path blocking opponent not in possession of the ball, (a third party), in order to attempt to play at the ball, that player is obstructed – if, but for the blocking/shielding action, he or she would have been able to play at the ball.

It has become a complicated Rule because there is an inexplicable reluctance to apply it and all sorts of ‘reasons’ are invented to avoid doing so e.g. “too difficult”, “players do not expect to be penalised” (circular reasoning), “everybody umpires this way” or “this is what I have been told to do” (both of which are a ‘cop out’ when a subjective judgement is called for), “not attempting to play at the ball” or “not in a position to play at the ball”, (when either or both actions – 1)  attempting a tackle, without making physical contact and 2) positioning to tackle – have illegally been made impossible by the prior actions of the obstructing player.

(In much the same way excuses are found for not applying the Rules concerning dangerous play, particularly a dangerously played ball).

Instead of there being an onus on players not to obstruct opponents, which is what an Obstruction Rule is (or should be) about, there is now, apparently, an obligation on an obstructed player to become unobstructed (to go around). That is analogous to the notion that a player defending the goal causes danger, by positioning or has the responsibility to have the skill to defend him or her self, if the ball is raised at him or her by an opponent – gobbledygook and switching of responsibility in both Rules.

 

Tags:
May 21, 2016

Field Hockey Rules: Physical contact and Obstruction

Edited  27th May 2016

There seems to be an assumption being made – which has no Rule support –  that obstruction/shielding of the ball requires physical contact to be initiated by the ball holder before an obstruction offence can occur when the ball is being shielded by the player in possession of it from an defending opponent within the defender’s playing reach and the ball holder is moving into/towards the defender.

This is the opposite to the attitude taken to a player who is trying to tackle for the ball, where not even an attempt to tackle can be made from a position where there will be (may be?) physical contact (Rule 9.13). This is heavily slanted in favour of the player in possession of the ball, who has the advantage anyway – in other words the current ‘interpretation’ (of what part of Rule 9.12 exactly?) is unfair; the balance, which is supposed to exist, between Rule 9.12 and 9.13 has been lost.

What a receiver of the ball should do, having received the ball, has been ‘watered down’ since 1993 (must, may, is permitted to) to the point where there is now no direction/instruction and no prohibition at all. In fact there is now no difference ‘in practice’ between what a player in controlled possession of the ball is permitted to do and the way in which a player in the act of receiving the ball is permitted to shield it. What was permitted only to a receiver of the ball, while receiving and controlling it, has become (by ‘interpretation’) what is allowed in the play of a player already in controlled posession of the ball – the exception has become the Rule i.e. there is no Rule. 

The changes due to the ‘new interpretation’ which made such a huge tactical difference to the game after 1992/3 (a time before a great number of the current high level players were born and certainly before the vast majority of them had any Rule knowledge at all), are insignificant compared with what a ball holder is now being allowed to get away with.

 

I write “get away with” because the only significant addition (*) to the Obstruction Rule since 1993 was made in 2009, to clarify (not successfully) with an unannounced clause extension in the explanation of application (no reference was made to this change in the Preface of the rulebook), which states that a player in possession of the ball may not move to position between an opponent and the ball when that opponent is within playing distance of the ball and attempting to play at it.

*(there were extensive deletions of necessary guidance (and of all of existing Interpretation) made in 2004 when the rule book was rewritten in a metric page size format; nearly all instruction concerning a receiving player, and what that player should do after having received and controlled the ball, the foundation of the ‘new interpretation’, simply disappeared, and what is left – that a stationary receiver may be facing in any direction – does not make much sense in isolation

The present interpretation, which I think is perverse and not what the (sic) Rules Committee intended in 2009, seems to be that if such ball shielding occurs before an opponent intent on making a tackle comes to within playing reach of the ball (or is moved/backed into/towards by the ball-holder when beyond playing range), which is not contrary to Rule,  then that shielding can legitimately continue after the ball holder is within the playing reach of an actively defending opponent – but such ball shielding is contrary to Rule.

an opponent cannot legally attempt to play directly at the ball because it is being shielded by the body of a ball-holder : such ball shielding cannot therefore be legitimate as it obstructs the path of an opponent to the ball, but the (non) application of the Obstruction Rule at the moment is to ‘say’ to a player in possession of the ball that it cannot be shielded from an opponent unless he or she feels like shielding it, certainly no action is taken by umpires to deter ball shielding or enforce the Obstruction Rule; by enlarge the Rule is simply ignored.

The remedy (and there needs to be a remedy to restore balance to the contest between attackers and defenders) is simple; clearly prohibit ball shielding when a player who is in controlled possession of the ball is or moves to become or is closed on to become within the playing reach of an opponent who is demonstrating an intent to make a tackle – thus requiring movement in good time away from the playing reach of a tackler to avoid an obstruction offence – in other words demanding player movement and ball movement, that is ‘game flow’, rather than ball shielding and the blocking off of opponents, often with the ball-holder in a static or near static position: that is apply the Rule as it is intended to be applied. 

I believe that this is how the Obstruction Rule was intended to be applied anyway pre 2009 and certainly post 2009. (prior to 2004 Rules Interpretation included the advice to umpires, that if a defender could have played at the ball directly but was prevented from doing so only because of the movement and/or positioning of the player in possession of the ball, then that defender was obstructed  – clear and simple) This advice seemed to have been deleted because it was contrary to a different agenda, that is to make hockey look similar to soccer so that television viewers could understand it: the Rules that got in the way of this aim were/are considered unimportant. 

 

The 2009 amendment was made to try to address the misjudgement (lack of response) which had by that time become prevalent and which was basically ignoring that the ‘new interpretation’, (which was in fact an exception to the Rule rather than an interpretation that in any way changed what obstruction was – and is) allowed temporary ball shielding only to a receiving player and then only while that player was receiving and controlling the ball prior to moving away (from?) with it or immediately passing it away.  

The original (1992/3) intention was to enhance game flow and encourage tactical development (particularly backpassing and the opening of angles) by preventing/deterring tacklers from demonstrating ‘obstruction’ by clattering into receiving players (who were previously technically often illegally shielding while receiving the ball if they had not made a lead run to create the space necessary to get beyond their marker’s playing reach). The need to make a lead run away from markers to create space in which to legitimately receive the ball was eliminated post 1994 (not entirely a good thing, lead runs are useful for other space creating and angle changing purposes and those skills are lost as many players have never needed to develop them for another purpose – in order to receive the ball

Now, at the other extreme (Rules always seem to be applied at one extreme or the other – without common sense – there can be no denying that the pre-1992 interpretation was extreme ), we have players in controlled possession of the ball using their body to shield the ball past opponents and even clattering into opponents who are trying to position to tackle or to block the ball and it is the defenders who are being penalised (for contact) not the ball holder who is making illegal use of the body and usually initiates any physical contact, the defender often being stationary or even trying to back out of the way.

Doing the direct opposite of what was unfairly done before is not usually a sensible compromise, it just reverses the direction of unfairness.

Here is a fairly recent example (2015) of deliberate obstruction by a defender which should have been penalised with a penalty stroke. The contrast between this and the ‘automatic’ penalising of any ball/foot contact, even when there is no intent and no advantage gained from such contact, is astonishing.

But it is not a new development.

This obstruction was eventually penalised when a second attacker was also obstructed at the same time as the first one continued to be, the much delayed penalty was not however a penalty stroke for a deliberate offence, as it should have been, but a penalty corner.

 

 

And it just keeps getting worse and worse, as attackers also explore and expand ball shielding options – which appear to be unlimited:-

 

In each case opponents move out of the way of ball-holders, moving bodily towards them , to avoid physical contact: while the ball holder is moving into the defender’s playing reach or when already within their playing reach moving towards them. It seems to be the case that if a defending opponent ‘holds ground’ in these circumstances it is they who are likely to be penalised for any body contact made and not the ball-holder who is clearly the offender: this is wrong.