Posts tagged ‘Obstruction’

November 6, 2017

Positioning the ball to shield it.

FIELD HOCKEY RULES

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

A player must not obstruct an opponent who is attempting to play at the ball. (a better semantic construction, which was used previously)

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.

…..except ……. into a position between the ball and an opponent who is within playing distance of the ball and attempting to play it.

It is common sense that if the ball is moved to achieve a positioning of the body of the ball-holder between an opponent and the ball, the above clause and therefore the Rule has been breached. Moving the ball rather than moving the body to effect a shielding of the ball with the body does not legitimately circumvent this criterion for an obstruction offence – the ball is still illegally shielded and an opponent obstructed.

I point out again that it is not possible to umpire a hockey match adequately at the higher levels (when the ball is moved across and up and down the pitch very quickly) with just two match umpires. I advocate a single central umpire (or referee) running a diagonal between the two circles and the assistance of four flag officials (umpires) each, in co-ordination, running an arc from about the half-way line to the base-line to cover the side-lines and base-lines of the entire pitch.  There was no umpire within 40m of either of these quick incidents in which the relative positions of players to each other and to the ball needed to carefully judged for fairness. From such distances foreshortening of the view makes accuracy in such judgements impossible – with the result that these incidents are generally ignored.

This incident is a combination of ball back and moving past the ball to position the body betweend the ball to obstruct a tackle attempt. The fact that it required considerable skill to carry out this foul does not make it any less an offence.

.
It is not necessary to shield the ball illegally to elude the tackle attempts of opponents. The play shown in the clip below is spectacular hockey i.e. hockey that it pleases spectators to see – there is no instance of obstruction in it and good stick/ball and movement skills are displayed. Opponents are either moving in the wrong direction or behind the play, i.e. not their own goal-side of the ball or the player in possession of it, when their tackle attempts are made.
.

Advertisements
Tags:
November 2, 2017

Highly respected and hugely ridiculous.

FIELD HOCKEY RULES

Obstruction penalised.



.
In the above video of an incident in a match between ARG and NED the NED player is a defender and the two ARG players are attackers, so the NED player is within his own 23m area and ends up facing his own base-line.  The umpire penalised one of the ARG players for obstruction after the NED player appealed.  The incident demonstrates ignorance of the Obstruction Rule by the umpire and by the players concerned. It is not an absolute ignorance, the NED player knew there was an Obstruction Rule, but close to it. I put this video up on YouTube in 2013, the situation with respect to Rule knowledge, particularly of the Obstruction Rule is now worse than it was in 2013.

I placed the above video in this article, when I have dozens of others showing no or a poor understanding of obstruction, because the umpire awarded a free-ball for obstruction in a situation where obstruction was impossible and was anyway the result of an attempt by the player awarded the free-ball to ‘manufacture’ the offence. This umpire could not have got the decision more wrong, as the NED player had previously obstructed one of the ARG players by backing in while shielding the ball and committed two physical contact offences, the first against the opponent he backed into and the second against the opponent he shoved from behind.

Here below is a more recent example. I include this one because the NED player should have been given, as a minimum, a long yellow, for dangerous use of the stick and for barging – a physical contact offence, instead of being awarded a free ball for obstruction, which was the decision made.

.
The following example is from one of the FIH Umpiring Committee coaching videos presented on dartfish.com. According to the ‘Interpretation of the action’  provided with the video (which was about advantage and the self-pass – and they got that wrong too) the player in black (NZ) obstructed the player in yellow (SA), even though the NZ player was facing towards the opponent’s base line and in possession of the ball in a normal dribbling crouch (a position from which he could not possibly have obstructed an opponent who was behind him). The SA player approach from behind (from the direction of the NZ goal) and wrapped himself around the legs of the NZ player and impeded him. The SA player should have been carded for this breaking down and physical contact action and a free ball awarded to NZ.

.
Ball body contact penalised.  Manufacturing. The Dangerously played ball not penalised

I am spoiled for choice when it comes to absurd application and ignorance of Rule 9.11 ball-body contact. Both of the cynical forcing actions shown in the videos below resulted in the award of a penalty corner against the team of the player hit with the ball, the first of them at a time when the offence of forcing was still extant as a stand alone Rule. The second match is not of international level, it’s an EHL game, but the world panel umpire who officiating it is considered to be “hugely experience and highly respected”.

.

.
.

.

There are too many incidents of a player being hit on the head with the ball and a penalty stroke awarded (a common extreme) to pick out the most absurd but this one, although luckily not a head hit, still makes me shudder. I posted this on YouTube in 2010, the comments it attracted there displayed common misconceptions about a shot at the goal and the ball being dangerous only if raised into a player from within 5m. The player nearer the striker, who took evasive action, was within 5m; the second defender who took evasive action but was still hit with the ball was more than 5m from the striker (but in the circumstances that was irrelevant LEA is not distance limited).

The playing level is not high and the decision the umpire (of similar level but nonetheless probably ‘qualified’) made is appalling, but it is not unusual to see FIH Umpires making similar ones. See next video clip. The umpire in the above clip might well have been following what he had seen senior umpires doing.

I trust further comment on the above decision is unnecessary because the decision made is so obviously wrong.
When I first saw it I thought this  (below) penalising of ball-body contact hilarious (the ball rebounded from the defender’s face mask to ground and then bounced up to make contact with the leg of an AUS player) but it was a ridiculous way for the umpire to deal with what was obviously a dangerously played ball by the attacker – he just ignored it – even if the decision finally given was the correct one – because of the dangerously played ball not the ball-leg contact, which certainly was not made voluntarily, the only criterion for a ball-body contact offence at the time.

The trailing umpire here immediately advised the engaged umpire via radio that the shot was going wide of the goal when it hit the defender. I have no doubt that had it been on target a penalty stroke would have been (incorrectly) awarded.

There is a need for objective criteria to clearly define a dangerously played ball – a ball played at high velocity (a velocity that could cause injury) at another player, at above sternum height at any distance, should I believe, always be considered to be dangerous play. Above knee height could be added as a criterion when the ball is raised into an opponent from within 5m, as it was in the above example (this is not presently the case in open play, the knee height criterion comes from the Rules for the conduct of a penalty corner).

There can be no doubt that players who can successfully target the cross-bar or a goal upright in practice, are targeting defenders when the ball is consistently propelled at head height towards them, with a drag-flick, during successive penalty corners. The irresponsible edge hit made towards an opponent seen in the previous video should have been punished by the umpires, not rewarded.(The trailing umpire confirmed, with signal, the decision of the engaged umpire when his opinion was looked for)
.

There are still those, many of them practicing umpires, who declare that a raised shot that is missing the goal is dangerous play, but will state with total conviction that the same shot if on target is not, even cannot be, dangerous. There is no rational support for either view and certainly no support for either of those statements in the handbook The Rules of Hockey. Whether or not a shot at goal in on target is irrelevant from a dangerous play point of view; what is relevant to whether or not a ball is dangerously played is whether or not it is raised at another player: that is fundamental. Ball velocity and the distance from a player the ball is propelled are other considerations when determining when evasive action, if attempted, is legitimate.  If the ball is not raised* into another player (with perhaps the sole exception of a player who has fallen to ground) the ball cannot have been played (propelled) in a dangerous way (A ball played in a way that leads to dangerous play is another matter).

  • raised means that the ball is not immediately after last contact with the stick during any stroke, in contact with the surface of the pitch. There is no upper or lower height specified in the Rule 9.8. or Rule 9.9. 
  • Do not ‘forget’ lifted, especially if the ball is raised intentionally, think potentially dangerous.

 

October 18, 2017

Confusing coaching for umpires

FIELD HOCKEY RULES

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

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? (Intent to obstruct is not a criterion for the offence but a player’s intentions are generally a good indicator of the purpose of their actions)

 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 at 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 taken over an opponent’s head actions are usually associated with attempts to ‘manufacture’ obstruction by an opponent – see below – and not with illegal ball shielding by a player in possession of the ball)

(The word intentional might reasonably be substituted for either active or professional in the above two clauses, and may actually be interpreted in that way, but should not be because intention is not a relevant criterion for an obstruction offence)

 

•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’ (deleted from advice given to umpires) 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 an obstruction offence caused by such ball-shielding actions.

A more pernicious result of the disappearance of advice to umpires concerning the interpretation of 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? – is plain wrong because it turns the application of the Obstruction Rule into a farce. We have the spectacle of an opposing player attempting to tackle from behind and between the legs of the player in possession of the ball when it is within his or her playing reach – and play being allowed to continue despite such clear obstruction/impeding).

•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 (previously presented at the back of the handbook) and the Rule Guidance for Players and Umpires, previously 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, a format which was adopted in 1995 for the then existing Rule Guidance for Players and Umpires. The Rule Proper was and 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 lost words with exact synonyms, which has not happened). Changing the application of a Rule 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 for offence) 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 by the FIH 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 this was 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 a similar sort of ‘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 only 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 or shootout 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 that conflicts with those instructions – 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, but of course it should not be.

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 and restructure 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) offence 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 skills of 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 (and finding ways to increase 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.

 

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

I have come across another coaching video which comes close to contradicting what is stated in the above example but is still not as accurate as it should be. This coaching is however on the right track – that moving to position the body between an opponent and the ball to prevent or delay a tackle attempt is an obstruction offence. But I take issue with the action given as ‘correct’ (and have covered over the ‘correct play’ label in the slow-mo repeat). This is a out-take of the original which included other elements of play.

.
In the (sic) ‘correct’ version the player with the ball turns to position between her opponent and the ball after she has moved to within the defender’s playing reach (a very common misjudgement) and then continues to move towards her (back in) – this too is obstruction – the initial positioning of the leg of the ball holder prevented the defender from attempting a legal tackle when she would otherwise have been able to do so – by blocking her path to the ball and shielding it from her.

The turning movement (which will position the ball holder between her opponent and the ball) needs to be started just before coming within the playing reach of a player intent on tackling – not after doing so. And the turn should be used to achieve significant lateral movement, rather than mostly forward movement (to avoid backing into the defender with contact – two offences – or backing into the defender’s playing reach) so that the ball is put and then kept beyond the playing reach of the opponent who is being eluded.

The example given as correct play in this second video is not obstruction only because the ‘tackler’ in this case is just acting as a dummy and is not actually making any real attempt to play at the ball – she would certainly have been obstructed if she made a genuine attempt to play at the ball with her stick as the ball was brought into a position within the playing reach of it – but a blocked and shielded position.

There can be no obstruction offence unless it is forced by a tackle attempt. (forced not ‘manufactured’ there is a big and very significant difference between these two terms. When an obstruction is ‘manufactured’ it is generally the ball holder – or the last player to have controlled possession of the ball – not a defender, who tries to demonstrate that he or she is obstructed). Below is an example of a player in possession of the ball (Kwan Brown of T &T) successfully ‘conning’ an umpire into awarding him a free ball for what was a ‘manufactured obstruction’, in fact a physical contact offence by Brown who had control of the ball prior to playing it to the far side of his opponent and then deliberately running into him.

October 14, 2017

Misjudgement of Timing and Distance.

FIELD HOCKEY RULES

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 6, 2017

Doublespeak and dissemination of ignorance.

FIELD HOCKEY RULES

This thread on fieldhockeyforum contains some very strange opinions about what happened (interpretation of the action) and what the correct decision should have been (application of the Rules) following the incident shown in the first video below.

That the match umpire should have decided that the BEL defender was guilty of an obstruction offence was odd, but perhaps understandable given his position and the speed of the action, which he could see only once. but there was no excuse for those with access to video replay – including the video umpire – to repeat his mistake.

http://fieldhockeyforum.com/threads/crabbing-or-shielding.19582/#post-302924

CardHappy is a senior umpire and an umpire coach and it is disappointing to see a normally sensible person writing the following ‘half-baked’ nonsense in an online hockey forum.

CardHappy. That was not obstruction. The onus is on the defender to get in a position to be able to play the ball without body contact. The attacker did not back into the defender they were moving into space and the defender could have avoided body contact.

Deegum: Under what rule do you penalise deliberately running into a player?

And this is the problem. You don’t penalise someone for this. It is the outcome that you penalise eg. Obstruction, 3rd Party Obstruction, Danger etc. Unless it is specifically written in the rule book.

For the player in possession of the ball to be penalised for obstruction in this video he would have had to have gone into the player who was already in position. This was not the case as you can see the defender was moving across towards the intended path of the attacker. If the defender had stayed still no body contact would have occurred. Of course no defender would do this and he tried to get the ball but ran into the attacker’s path. It is very easy for an inexperienced umpire to award a free hit to the player that looked like they came off worse in a tackle.. luckily the umpires involved were not inexperienced.

CardHappy, Jan 27, 2014

 

 

CardHappy. “That was not obstruction. The onus is on the defender to get in a position to be able to play the ball without body contact. The attacker did not back into the defender they were moving into space and the defender could have avoided body contact“.

There was an obstruction offence by the ENG player, who moved bodily into the BEL player (a criterion of obstruction as well as a physical contact offence) while the BEL player was attempting to play at the ball – that he did not back into the BEL player is beside the point.

There is no onus on a defender to get into a position to play the ball without body contact (that is long deleted, 2004, ‘Rule Interpretation’, written in 1993) The relevant Rule, 9.13. states that a tackle must not be attempted from a position where physical contact will result. i.e. where the physical contact is caused by the action of making a tackle attempt – which is a significantly different wording.The tackle attempt was not the prime cause of the contact between the two players – leading the ball while shielding it, was. Here is an example of play where the supposed onus on the defender to position where a tackle attempt can be made without contact is an impossibility – the defender was forced (an offence by the attacker) to back away to avoid contact. The Rules cannot demand impossibilities.

 

 

In the first incident shown above the physical contact was caused by the player in possession of the ball charging into the tackler as the tackler played the ball. There is no obligation (onus) on any player to get out of the path of an opponent who charges into that player while he is legitimately attempting to play at the ball, as the BEL player was. The BEL player, despite the attempted ball-shielding by the ENG player, actually had his stick in contact with the ball when he was barged over by the ENG player. 

The second post from CardHappy is arguably more mistaken than the initial one

“And this is the problem. You don’t penalise someone for this (running into another player). It is the outcome that you penalise eg. Obstruction, 3rd Party Obstruction, Danger etc. Unless it is specifically written in the rule book.”

Moving bodily into another player is specifically prohibited by more than one Rule; almost anyone else making the above comment in a forum post would have been ridiculed – and rightly so. Too much ‘respect’ has been given to CardHappy’s opinion on this point (redumpire , a TD, who should know better, later endorses his post). It appears that forum members look first to see who made a particular comment when deciding whether or not to disagree with it and often don’t even bother to properly read what is written, especially when it is posted by one of the ‘accepted’ individuals. (I am not one of ‘the accepted’ on this Internet hockey forum, I have in fact been banned from it since 2009, for disagreeing with Rule interpretations some other contributors and moderators tried to force me to agree with: much of the time I was a contributing member my posted opinions were confined in the Sin Bin).

For the player in possession of the ball to be penalised for obstruction in this video he would have had to have gone into the player who was already in position.

That statement is utter nonsense, it mixes a criterion for a physical contact offence with that for obstruction. Obstruction relates to positioning to prevent or delay an opponent playing at the ball – which is exactly what the ENG player did, the physical contact was incidental, but also a criterion for obstruction in ball-shielding situations while in possession of the ball – moving bodily into – the ENG player, in possession, caused contact by moving into the path of the BEL tackler while pivoting about the ball in order to block him and shield the ball from him.

This was not the case as you can see the defender was moving across towards the intended path of the attacker.

It is not an offence for a tackler to move towards or across the intended path of an opponent who is in possession of the ball – it is an offence for a player in possession of the ball (as the ENG player was) to move to position between an opponent and the ball when the opponent is within playing distance of the ball and attempting to play at it: as the BEL player was

If the defender had stayed still no body contact would have occurred.

True, but had the player in possession of the ball stayed still (or not turned to shield the ball while leading it) no body contact would have occurred.

Of course no defender would do this and he tried to get the ball but ran into the attacker’s path.

Nonsence – see rebuttal above.

It is very easy for an inexperienced umpire to award a free hit to the player that looked like they came off worse in a tackle.. luckily the umpires involved were not inexperienced.

The only thing ‘lucky’ about this ‘experienced’ umpiring is that they (video umpire included) had the luck to get away with the decision to award a penalty corner for Obstruction by the BEL player – penalising an offence that did not occur. Both should have received ‘a roasting’ from the TD or the umpire manager after the match, but I doubt that happened.

 

I now turn to the remarks made by the commentators, Simon Mason in particular. Immediately the initial penalty corner decision was made and the BEL team asked for a video referral. Simon Mason speculated about what the question put to the video umpire would be.

“The question here I think will be; Was Mantel carrying the ball in a position where he actually manufactured the foul by carrying the ball behind his right foot with his body forward? “ (of the ball?). Mason observed that the ENG player Mantel was ‘carrying’ the ball to the rear of his right foot and that he was leading the ball with his body when the collision occurred, but he began ‘off track’, making an assumption that there was an offence by the BEL player (because the umpire did so?), an offence that the ENG player ‘manufactured’. Why would a ‘manufactured’ offence be penalised by a competent umpire?

The word obstruction very rarely passes the lips of any match commentator these days; they seem unable to accept the existence of Rule 9.12. but frequently mix a physical contact offence with an obstruction offence when there is physical contact and call it obstruction. Obstruction is ‘the invisible gorilla’ for umpires and commentators.  Mason gave a reasonable description of the seen actions – leading the ball with the body while ‘carrying’ it to the rear of the feet – which are in themselves obstructive actions (illegal shielding) when an opponent within playing distance of the ball is prevented or delayed from playing directly at it because it is fully (usually forcing a ‘go around’ or a ‘stop and hold position’ action) or partially shielded from him by the player in possession of it.(On this occasion the tackler was given no opportunity to ‘go around’ or to stop to avoid contact)

The rest of the relevant commentary, given after the question has been put to the video umpire, is broken, as the commentators interrupted their own thoughts.

“As Mantel drives right …….the BEL player is saying that Mantel actually pushed him…..I think from this angle…….Mantel is allowed to carry the ball there,…. there is nothing wrong there,… he is just crabbing through space”.

Had Mantel been moving with the ball out in front of his feet and the BEL player had run into him while attempting a tackle, there would have been a breach of Rule 9.13. by the BEL player (and/or a breach of Rule 9.3 or 9.4 physical contact, impeding) – not an obstruction offence. As it was the ENG player Mantel, was ‘crabbing’, as Mason states, with the ball to the rear of his feet and while attempting to shield it from the BEL player with his body – an obstruction offence. “There is nothing wrong there; Mantel is allowed to carry the ball there; he is just crabbing through space” is wrong and similar to the “there is nothing wrong with the carry position” comment that Mason made about the obstructive actions of Carla Rebecchi in an ARG v ENG women’s match at around the same time as the above men’s match.

https://www.youtube.com/my_videos?o=U&sq=everything+wrong

Simon Mason knows what obstruction is, but it seems that he will now not accept that it is of itself an offence – without any physical contact occurring.

 

It is now necessary to consider the Rules knowledge of the players, who as participants, are obliged to know the Rules of the game they are playing. Knowing the Rules and asking umpires (also participants) to apply the Rules as they are given in the published rule-book would put players into frequent conflict with umpires, and in fact players respond to game incidents in the way that umpires, by means of previous decisions – ‘practice’ – have trained them to. This is called ‘player expectation’ by umpires and is used as an excuse to continue with the developed practices (of uncertain origin) umpire coaches have imposed on both umpires and players. ‘Umpiring practice’ is generally an ever expanding subversion of the published Rules of Hockey – invention is as rife as denial.The reader will be familiar with many of the inventions so there is no need to repeat them here – and reinforce them.

It was claimed by the second commentator that Mantel had successfully ‘won’ a penalty corner and that that was what is had intended to do. Certainly he tried to hit the leg of the first defender he encountered by raising the ball at him from close range (player expectation that a player hit with the ball will be penalised), but missed, the ball then went beyond his playing reach and he had to accelerate to catch it. As he controlled the ball he pulled it back and turned clockwise pivoting about the ball so that he was the opponent’s goal-side of it, this action shielded the ball from the rapidly approaching BEL defender who was intent on making a tackle and also led to physical contact between Manel’s leg/hip and the BEL defender – which knocked the reaching BEL defender/tackler off his feet.

It is telling that in the incident above that the players seemed unaware of the meaning of the signal that the umpire made after awarding the penalty corner and assumed that the penalty was awarded for physical contact  (or that physical contact was the same thing as obstruction) – subsequently claiming that the ENG player had pushed the defender rather than the other way around. To claim that their player had first been obstructed (as he was) did not occur to them, possibly because ball shielding is not presently considered by players to be an offence, which is undoubtedly due to the fact umpires very seldom penalise it unless it is combined with a physical contact offence. Players now automatically shield the ball when they get into any sort of contested situation (they are actually coached to do so) and would be astonished to be penalised for taking this action.

A player who receives the ball in a shielding position is obliged to move away from opponents to put and keep the ball beyond the reach of a tackler – and may then turn and use stick-work and footwork to evade a marking opponent who is drawn into a tackle attempt. Turning into an opponent and moving bodily into an opponent are both specifically forbidden actions.

.

 
.
We have a widespread dissemination of ignorance of the Obstruction Rule which is propagated by umpiring practice (player expectation) and by the doublespeak posts made to internet hockey fora which are similar to some of those made in the forum topic thread referred to above.

The lack of interest shown in getting dangerous play decisions correct is scandalous, and interest is deliberately kept low by moderators who prematurely close discussions or threaten to Sin Bin or ban those who persist in asking questions about dangerous play – particularly about the dangerously played ball.  Threads about obstruction are also given very short shift and no reasonable explanation for the present ‘interpretations’ is forthcoming. Could anyone explain why the GER player, in the third incident in the above video clip, was not penalised for shielding the ball while moving bodily into opponents and causing physical contact?

(Some might even think the one of the defenders guilty of a physical contact offence just because physical contact occurred and these people cannot conceive that a player in possession is the guilty party, not one making a tackle attempt – but defenders are not obliged to disappear out of the path of a ball holder who is moving into them while shielding the ball; on the contrary they have been offended against.)

Seeing play of this sort go unpenalised, in other words umpiring of this sort, does incredible damage to the understanding and application of the Rules because players and umpires of below international standard assume it is correct (and imitate it) because of the level of the umpire concerned. Indeed the fact that it occurs at international level is used as an argument that it is (must be) correct – even when it is dead wrong.


 

 

 

 

To be continued….

Comments from the match commentators.

September 3, 2017

Positioning between an opponent and the ball.

FIELD HOCKEY RULES

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

Pictures and words

FIELD HOCKEY RULES

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:
July 30, 2017

Obstruction, but what kind of.

FIELD HOCKEY RULES

Rules of Hockey: Obstruction – the wording.

I think there is unsatisfactory wording in the explanation of application of the Obstruction Rule – the Rule Proper is not too bad “Players must not obstruct an opponent who is attempting to play the ballif the meaning of ‘obstruct’ is understood and the word ‘attempting’ is not given a bizarre interpretation (two big ‘ifs’) as will be seen in the videos below.

The problems begin immediately, in the first clause.

Players obstruct if they-

shield the ball from a legitimate tackle with the stick or any part of the body
(My underlining)

(in this instance, unlike the case of ‘legitimate evasive action’, ‘legitimate’ here above, obviously does mean ‘legal’, but probably not ‘genuine’ and clearly not ‘necessary’. ‘Legitimate’ is not a good choice of word for the Rule because it is ambiguous – I leave it out)

Why is the word “from” used? “from a legitimate tackle” It is generally the case that a legitimate (legal) tackle cannot be made or even attempted (Rule 9.13) if the ball is being shielded by a ball-holder from an opponent; so the ball is not being shielded from a legitimate tackle, a legal tackle cannot be made, is in fact being prevented, and illegally so, the ball being shielded with just that purpose.

This is clearer:-

Players obstruct if they:-

shield the ball with the stick or any part of the body to prevent or delay an opponent playing at the ball.

Replacing shield the ball from…” , which makes no sense when combined with the rest of the clause, with shield the ball …..to prevent… , (there is no need to mention a tackle at all, the Rule Proper does not), makes sense of what is supposed to be an Explanation of application of the Rule – which does not at present make sense – and the suggested changes would be sufficient as a repair to enable a basic understanding of the Rule. The word ‘from’ could be retained, if it is felt to be necessary to the syntax, but placed elsewhere

Thus: – Players obstruct if they:- shield the ball with the stick or any part of the body to prevent or delay an opponent from playing at the ball. but the inclusion of from adds nothing to the meaning of the sentence, it simply gives flow to it, making the sentence a little easier to say.

There are also changes to the final clause necessary, to sort out the muddling of obstruction (usually by a player in possession of the ball – obstructive tackling being an exception) with ‘third party’ obstruction.

At present the final clause reads:-

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.

This could usefully be rewritten:-

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 can also be third party or shadow obstruction). This sometimes happens if a player runs across or blocks an opponent (including the goalkeeper or player with goalkeeping privileges) during a tackle, a shootout or when a penalty corner is being taken.

Oddly third party obstruction is generally well understood and properly penalised, while obstruction by a player in possession of the ball is not. The cause of each of these offences is the same:- preventing an opponent from playing or attempting to play the ball when he or she would otherwise have been able to do so. The only difference is that for a ‘third party’ offence it is not necessary that the player obstructed be within playing distance of the ball at the time of the obstruction. All that is required for ‘third party’ is that but for the obstructive positioning of an opponent the obstructed player would have been able to reach the ball or be in a position to make a challenge for it. For obstruction by a ball holder it is also required that the obstructed player be within playing distance of the ball and but for the obstructive positioning of the ball holder the obstructed player would have been able to play at the ball.

It is denying an opponent the opportunity to play at the ball by illegal positioning between the opponent and the ball that constitutes the offence of obstruction. i.e. preventing an opponent from attempting a legal play at the ball: that is fundamental.

In the video below (which is an outtake from the umpire coaching video) we have an unusual ‘half-way’ situation. The ENG player is not initially in possession of the ball and nor is she a ‘third-party’, she is challenging for the ball. Does she obstruct the USA player? The ‘acid test’ must be “If the ENG player did not turn, as she did, to block off the USA player, would the USA player have been able to reach and play at the ball?” I think the answer to that question is “Yes”, so the USA player was obstructed. It does not matter that the USA player pushes the ball slightly beyond her playing reach before the ENG player imposes her body between the USA player and the ball because she was within playing reach of the ball when obstructed.

 

 

My opinion conflicts with that of Cris Malony, who comments on the incident which is part of a video clip from UmpireHockey.com He suggests in commentary that rather than being obstructed the USA player commits a contact offence (there would obviously be no need to penalise that offence in these circumstances as doing so would severely disadvantage her opponents) I believe that there is no contact offence – at least not by the USA player. The USA player was moving forward; the ENG turned in front of her and then propped with the ball and even moved a little backwards, the USA player was simply unable to avoid running into her but does her best not to. This video was apparently put up to coach umpires how not to make error by penalising for obstruction; when what is really needed is video coaching to enable umpires to recognise obstruction and to encourage them to penalise it when it occurs to the disadvantage of opponents: something that is not happening as much as it should at present.

       https://youtu.be/MnPwIy6VBB4 .com

The shootout incidents, in the umpire coaching video incidents above, are a mixed bag. I see the first of them as obstruction, but the second and third as legal play, because in these latter incidents the ball is not taken into the playing reach of the goalkeeper. These days however the Obstruction Rule seems to be suspended during shootouts; there are several videos on my YouTube channel which illustrate lack of necessary decision, and application (or interpretation) by umpires which does not fit with the wording of the Rule. Here  are two where the attacker commits two offences, obstruction and physical contact (and in the second stick obstruction as well), without penalty against the obstructing player.

.

.

The above incidents are not at all unusual, it is usually declared that the goalkeeper was not trying to play at the ball or was not in a position to play at the ball – without taking account of why that was – prevention by obstruction. In the second one, a penalty stroke was awarded despite the only offences that occurred – initially stepping backwards and into physical contact with an opponent while shielding the ball (three actions, each a criterion for obstruction), and then a fourth, the offence of stick obstruction – being committed by the attacker, not by the goalkeeper.

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tags:
July 7, 2017

Missing the ‘bleeding obvious’

FIELD HOCKEY RULES

A few days ago the Netherlands women beat the New Zealand women in a semi-final match and then went on to win the final. There was an article on fieldhockey.com about what was described as a scintillating semi-final match. I have been unable to find any video of this match or of the concluding shootout which decided the winner, but according to a written report, a video referral by the NED team overturned a goal awarded to the NZ team because the ball crossed the goal-line 0.2 seconds after the 8 seconds allowed. Had that goal stood it appears that the NZ team would have won.

Anyone not familiar with the way the game is officiated might be thinking “Wow, they apply the Rules to the letter“.

Published with the fieldhockey.com article was a photograph from Planet Hockey, and looking at that, the natural reaction might be “Why don’t the umpires apply the Rules?“. One or other of these players is committing an offence – and if it is the goalkeeper then a penalty stroke should have been awarded.

I know that some people will say that nothing can be determined from a still, especially a single photograph, and that what is shown could be construed as both an impeding offence and a physical contact offence by the goalkeeper. (Was a penalty stroke awarded? I don’t know) or an obstruction by the attacker and there is no way of telling which it is – which came first.


But that misses ‘the bleeding obvious’ which is that the NED player must have moved to position herself between the goalkeeper and the ball prior to what is seen in the photograph.

Did she do that when the goalkeeper was within playing distance of the ball and trying to play at it (an offence)? I don’t know.

Did she then step backwards, moving bodily into contact with the goalkeeper (two offences)? I don’t know, but it looks as if she did.

Did the attacker go on to put the ball into the goal and be awarded a goal? I don’t know.

What I do know is that what is shown in the video below has become common practice and it is highly likely that the NED player shown above initially did something similar to shield the ball from the goalkeeper.

This is from another Semi Final: this one from the World League.

No doubt those who see no offence in the video will declare that although the defender was trying to play at the ball he was never in a position to do so. But why was that?

The attacker moved to position himself between the defender and the ball – while still beyond the playing reach of the defender, so nothing wrong with that, but it is ‘bleeding obvious’ he then moved bodily into the playing reach of the defender, who was at the time trying to play at the ball, while maintaining that shielding position  – and he then shielded the ball past the defender while the defender was within playing reach of the ball and still trying to play at it. That, according to the wording of the Obstruction Rule, is obstruction on two counts (which are repeated – and extended – in the paragraph relating to movement with the ball by a player in possession of the ball).


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.

Note that physical contact is not necessary  –  or move….. into a position between the ball and an opponent – for there to be a moving into offence. The offence is ball shielding by positioning and not necessarily physical contact – any physical contact caused by the movement of the player in possession would be an additional offence.

 

The last paragraph of Rule Explanation relates well to what the NED player in the photograph is doing – blocking.


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.

Such blocking is not confined to third-part offences or impeding offences.

 

During a shootout it is not as easy for a ball-holder to shield the ball past a goalkeeper as it is to do so past a field player, because a goalkeeper is permitted to use the body to play the ball and may ‘log’ full-length in the attempt to do so. Therefore the majority of attackers in a shootout try, while shielding the ball, to get the goalkeeper to fully commit and go to ground so that they can then use speed of foot to move away from the goalkeeper’s reach. Very few players appear to have the skill or the confidence to carry out a spin-turn on the ball that will take them sufficiently beyond the goalkeeper’s reach to make a shot while the goalkeeper is still on his or her feet. Close shielding to prevent the goalkeeper playing directly at the ball, despite being an offence, appears to be the norm. Attacking players actually prefer to get the goalkeeper very close, even in contact (while blocking him or her from the ball), so they know exactly where the goalkeeper is when they have their back to him or her, and then know how far they need to move laterally in order to be able to make a successful hit shot. At one time players would be embarrassed and ashamed to have to rely on such play to retain possession of the ball and those who needed to do so were scorned as being without stick-work skills: this type of play was certainly not coached as it is now and regarded as a desirable skill. That this kind of play is now ‘acceptable’ is entirely due to ‘interpretation’ but it is not interpretation of anything written in the Obstruction Rule.

 

I greatly enjoyed the last paragraph of this fieldhockeyforum post on another related topic

http://fieldhockeyforum.com/threads/defending-blocking-a-tomahawk-reverse-shot.42872/#post-409858

 

The play of the “Arse of Doom” was possibly informed by the defending seen from, in particular, individuals in the Australian, Dutch and Indian National teams in recent tournaments. It is clear that there is an “Ignore it” instruction to umpires regarding ball shielding: missing the ‘bleeding obvious’ has now been cascaded to become an ‘interpretation pandemic’ which is out of and beyond control.

An example from the 2014 World Cup Final

 

.

Tags:
June 6, 2017

Physical contact via obstruction, a lack of skill

<span style=”font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;”><span style=”font-size:medium;”>FIELD HOCKEY RULES

I deleted more than forty articles from this web-blog at the beginning of the year, this one among them (which, seeing recent Tournament play, was clearly a mistake). I now restore it, slightly modified and with a different title, because I feel the subject matter is too important to ignore. The development of the skills involved in avoiding obstruction should be emphasised as fundamental to the playing of hockey and those skills should be encouraged and protected by correct umpiring  – which requires an understanding by umpires (and hence players) of what obstruction is and is not.  It is not simply a physical contact offence, physical contact is not an essential requirement for there to be an obstruction offence. To find out what obstruction is it is necessary to read the Rule and the provided Explanation of Application – all of it.

Rules of Hockey.

The ‘diminished’ Obstruction Rule. Shielding the ball. Hiding or ‘protecting’ the ball.    Lack of movement skills and footwork and stick-ball skills.

Cris Maloney and I have been in correspondence via email for a number of years. Many readers will be familiar with his Hockey USA Rule coaching videos on YouTube and his posts on FieldHockeyForum.com under the tag UmpireHockey.com

In a recent ‘Preseason Field Hockey Information’ presentation circular he introduces himself as follows:- ” I direct the national rules briefing videos given by Steve Horgan, write the rules comparison table, created the JUMP IN umpire training program, and I’m a field hockey umpire, author, and developer (programs and products). Over the last 40 years, perhaps the best label I’ve been given was simply field hockey evangelist. Those who are familiar with me know I have a special interest in advocating for field hockey umpires which in turn improves our sport.”

I too want to improve the sport for umpires – and for everybody else as well. I recently wrote to Cris when a question about stick obstruction was posted to FHF along with a video of the Final of the USA U15 National Indoor Championship, which contained the incident the question was asked about. I looked at the remainder of the video and it was obvious that the two young umpires who officiated that Final had no idea what obstruction was. This is the only Rule area where Cris and I do not broadly agree. He replied to me as follows:-

“Here’s the thing, it isn’t a foul to hide the ball with your body or stick. It is a foul to use your stick or your body to impede another player’s body or stick. Basically, that means there has to be contact…though no one admits it.”

That statement came as a shock I didn’t realise just how far apart we were on the meaning of the wording and the correct application of this Rule. With views like that held by those responsible for umpire coaching, it can be no surprise those two umpires had no understanding of the Obstruction Rule. That no one else admits how or explains why they are openly ignoring the very specific instructions given with the Explanation of Application of the Obstruction Rule is not a surprise.

Below is my edited (added to) reply to him.


Let’s take a look at the relevant Rule and the clauses to the Explanation of Application of this Rule to see how they fit with the following assertions made in your reply:-

“It isn’t a foul to hide the ball with your body or stick.

It is a foul to use either body or stick to impede an opponent’s body or stick.

For there to be an Obstruction offence there must be physical contact by the obstructing player (but that is not admitted).”

 

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.

Taking the above Explanation of Application clauses in reverse order. I believe “to shield” to have clear meaning and that meaning does not necessarily involve physical contact, the verb means ‘to protect’ or ‘to hide from’. Shielding or hiding the ball with the body or stick prevents (or delays) physical contact – between the stick of an opponent and the ball – it is done for that purpose: the Obstruction Rule specifically prohibits it.

As explained in previous articles about the Obstruction Rule, I read “from” in the third clause of the Explanation as “to prevent” because “from” in this context does not make grammatical sense, and I prefer to use the word legal rather than the ambiguous word ‘legitimate’ (which can mean legal or genuine or necessary depending on the context in which it is used). – shield the ball to prevent a legal tackle, with their stick or with any part of their body. does not change the meaning of the clause but is I think clearer language.

Physical contact is included in the criterion for offence, it is specified in the previous clause, physically interfere with the stick or body of an opponent but it is not the only criteria nor one that is essential for there to be an offence.

– back into an opponentcan mean back into physical contact with an opponent (but why then repeat the prohibition on physical contact with. “physically interfere with”). It can also mean to back into the playing reach of an opponent without making contact: I believe that is what is meant and why the word ‘interfere’ rather than ‘contact’ is used.

The clause means that a player in possession of the ball cannot legitimately ‘back into’ a position where a tackle attempt could be made but for being prevented by the positioning of the body of the player who is backing in i.e. the ball-holder is moving to position between the ball and an opponent who is within playing reach of the ball and demonstrating an intent to play at it.

This latter interpretation is supported (word for word) by the second prohibition in the clause below. It is the part underlined, which was added to the Explanation of Application in 2009 as a clarification – that backing into is not the only ball shielding action that is prohibited, any such positioning movement is prohibited if it results in the ball being shielded from an opponent – it was the last amendment made to the Obstruction Rule:-

– 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.

Expressing the above clause more simply, by leaving aside the physical contact already described in the first part (and also in a separate clause) and by not expressing this prohibition as an exception to the unnecessary advice that a player with the ball can move in any direction (a remnant of what was once an instruction to (not a choice given to but a demand made of) a receiving player to move away from opponents having received and controlled the ball – which should be restored), we arrive at:-

– A player with the ball is not permitted to move into a position between the ball and an opponent who is within playing distance of the ball and attempting to play it.

Moving into (by for example ‘backing’ or alternatively ‘turning’) “into a position between” is not a prohibition of physical contact but specifically when in possession of the ball, of positioning to shield the ball from an opponent when within the playing reach of that opponent, thereby preventing an attempt to play at the ball.

It is therefore obviously a foul to hide (shield) the ball with either the stick or body to prevent or delay an opponent who would otherwise be able to play directly at the ball from doing so – by forcing a tackler to go around the body or stick (both or either of which may be the obstruction) of the ball holder in order to attempting to play at the ball – this clause in the Explanation of Application of the Rule declares it to be so.

Players obstruct if they shield the ball from a legitimate tackle with their stick or any part of their body.

or even more clearly:-

Players obstruct if they shield the ball, with their stick or any part of their body, to prevent or delay an opponent from attempting to play directly at the ball .

It is also a foul to lead the ball with the body (by for example dragging the ball behind the body (feet) while sideways on or directly facing an opponent and moving into the playing reach of that opponent) towards and into the playing reach of an opponent and it is also a foul to move i.e. position, so that physical contact is made or an opponent is obliged to retreat to avoid physical contact

But there does not have to be physical contact for an obstruction offence to occur. I cannot subscribe to the declaration that for an obstruction offence to occur there must be physical contact because it is plainly false. I agree with the second of the three statements Cris Maloney made in his reply to me: I vigorously oppose, as I must if I observe the Rule, the first and third of them. All his statements are justified by him as what top umpires are seen to be doing.

Watching the Rio Olympics it was clear that some umpires did penalise obstruction only when there was physical contact which was initiated by a player in possession who was shielding the ball while moving bodily into an opponent (would they admit to that when they don’t admit to misapplying Rule 9.8, Rule 9.9 and Rule 9.11 – especially where they overlap i.e. when the ball is lifted into an opponent ?). But it was also clear that other umpires did not penalise obstruction even when there was physical contact caused by a ball shielding player who was in possession of the ball,

 

despite there being not only an Obstruction Rule (as given in part above – the ‘third-party’ clauses have not been included here) but a separate Rule (9.3) which prohibit any physical contact (stick or body) and also another Rule (9.4) which prohibits impeding, (which however need not involve physical contact but may do so).

The GER player involved in the incident shown above (who himself had been guilty of a prior obstruction offence) was given a green card for voicing his opinion of the umpire’s failure to penalise the IND player for obstruction/moving into/barging.

The Obstruction Rule could be written without any reference at all to physical contact and could mention only a single purpose of it – to prohibit ball shielding or ‘hiding’ the ball, with the stick or body of the player in possession of it, to prevent an opponent who would otherwise be able to do so, from immediately playing directly at or attempting to play directly at the ball.

Ironically, now that obstruction (ball shielding) is generally being ignored as an offence, there is a great deal more physical contact than there was when the Rule was reasonably enforced, that is when attention was paid to the wording of the Rule Proper and the Explanation of Application given with it.

In the above passage of poor play the GER defender was penalised, apparently for a contact tackle, but then the ‘messy’ taking of the free-ball and the subsequent obstruction, positioning between / backing-in / barging, by the IND player was ignored. This kind of play and umpiring was not unusual in Rio, it was the norm. Not attractive hockey.

Not penalising obstruction does not significantly reduce stoppages, because tacklers must try to play the ball and are penalised for the slightest contact infringement. A second purpose of the Obstruction Rule is to reduce incidents of physical contact in contests for the ball by removing a cause of it – the frustration of a tackle attempt by ball shielding.

How to avoid giving obstruction? Put and keep the ball beyond the playing reach of an opponentmove off in any direction or pass the ball away in any direction (“off” and “away” are interchangeable words here but I feel “away” to be the clearer term) and if neither is possible, then have developed the ball-stick and movement skills to elude a tackle attempt while keeping the ball ‘open’. The latter option is the more difficult because it requires the development of a high level of stick-ball skill, which is why the unskilled (the lazy) need to find ways to avoid it. Hockey has been ‘dumbed down’ to allow participants with little skill to play it at a low level, which is fine, but players should not still be playing ‘dumbed down’ hockey once they have progressed significantly beyond the novice stage, they should be developing the skills that make the game enjoyable to play and attractive to watch.

An AUS defender almost knocked of his feet by a NED player who backed into him, while ‘protecting’ the ball and barged him out of the way soccer style – play continued.

Facts and truths are not the same thing, ‘the truth’ (according to the etymology of the word truth) is what is believed (by ‘everybody’), which may have nothing at all to do with the demonstrable facts of a matter e.g. the wording of a Rule. This is how faith is developed and how the ‘high priests’ (FIH Umpires) become highly respected practitioners, they practice, expound and develop ‘the truth’ – what they themselves believe or have been instructed to believe –  facts are an embarrassment to them.

If Cris Maloney is to base his future umpire coaching videos on what is seen of the Rule application of FIH Umpires he will have to start preaching that a player in possession of the ball cannot be guilty of a physical contact offence. It has already been declared (see article on stick obstruction http://wp.me/pKOEk-2g1) that if a player has his or her stick in contact with the ball that player cannot stick-obstruct – which is a nonsense. Such nonsense is commonplace, it has also been declared and has been maintained to be fact by many people for a long time  that obstruction cannot take place if a ball-holder is stationary. (since 2003 to be exact because in 2002 there was an instruction to umpires in the rule-book to watch for (penalise?) players who stood still and shielded the ball when under pressure). But it has also been declared, with the same certainty, that if a player in possession of the ball is moving the ball with the stick or is moving with the ball no obstruction is possible: so taken together there is, according to those who make these declarations, no conceivable circumstance in which an obstruction offence could occur. And if these declarations are not to be taken together we are left to choose which ‘interpretation’ (invention) to believe without there being any evidence to support belief in any of them, while those who make these conflicting statements umpire accordingly and continue to argue amongst themselves.

We can be sure these umpires will not stop inventing their own version of hockey, but where do they go from permitting physical contact by a player in possession of the ball – which is a fundamental change to the way, according to its published Rules, hockey should be played ?

It was noticeable that the need to penalise physical contact by a tackling player i.e. a ‘break-down’ tackle, was emphasised in the FIH video produced about the role of the Umpire Managers in Rio (this action was however still frequently ignored during the tournament see the video below – in which a GB player makes a tackle on a USA player, in possession of the ball, from a position and in such a way (a forehand tackle from the ball-holder’s rear left side) that obstruction and physical contact were inevitable and unavoidable, but the umpire suspended the USA player for the contact).

Physical contact initiated by a ball-holder, didn’t however, despite being a frequent occurrence, (see AUS v NED video above, the third one , for a blatant example), get a mention in the FIH umpire coaching video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJTfPlgknUo

May 19, 2017

Spin turn

FIELD HOCKEY RULES

Found on the Field Hockey Forum website.

Edit. 14th. July 2017.  1) FIH video umpire coaching on prevention of a tackle attempt.  and  2) Comment on positioning behind the play.

Criteria for offence

Moving to position between the ball and an opponent who is within playing reach of the ball and attempting to play it.

Backing into (the playing reach of) an opponent i.e. moving (turning) to position between a close opponent and the ball to prevent a tackle attempt.

(There is a umpire coaching video, Obstruction 8, from the FIH Umpiring Committee, about obstruction on the Dartfish website.

http://www.dartfish.tv/Player?CR=p38316c12660m736932

The accompanying ‘Interpretation of the action’ gives prevention of a tackle attempt as the reason obstruction was called)

Riley Fulmer #23 baseline fun.

A post shared by Tim Fulmer (@tremluf) on

A video shared by Tim Fulmer (@tremuf) on May 14 2017

The Obstruction Rule and relevant parts of the Explanation of Obstruction. (my additional notes, highlighting and bold text)

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

– back into an opponent (if there is physical contact caused by the player in possession when backing in, that is a second and separate offence or a combination of offences).

– shield the ball from a legitimate tackle with their stick or any part of their body.(shield the ball, with their stick or any part of their body, to prevent a legal tackle )

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.

Unless the umpire was of the opinion that the defender made no attempt at all to play at the ball the initial turning action by the attacker seen in the video was an obstruction offence. Certainly once the attacker had her back to the defender and was shielding the ball from her, a legitimate (legal) tackle attempt – which might otherwise have been made – was prevented – thatis obstruction.

From a technique point of view the attacker gets far too close to the defender – within her playing reach – as she begins her turn on the ball and she then moves further into the reach of her opponent while shielding the ball i.e. she moves bodily into the defender, although she does not make contact, mainly because the defender gives way to avoid it. That close to the base-line the attacker did not have the space to turn clear of the reach of her opponent but did not use any other stick-work or footwork technique to change direction or create more space for herself.

The defending is very weak; the defender should have held her ground, made use of the base-line to close the space and also made a much more determined attempt to get her stick on the ball – with both hands on the stick.

An attempt to play at the ball is not however graded by degree, either there was or was not an attempt made to play at the ball. If there was any attempt to play at the ball made by the defender, before or as the turn was made, and/or the ball the ball was shielded to prevent her playing at the ball, there was an obstruction offence.

There is no indication in the Rule Explanation that it is necessary for a defending player who is backed into to be attempting to play at the ball at the time for there to be an obstruction offence, especially if the defender is obliged to move away to avoid physical contact occurring. Many defenders do however give way in these circumstances because they might otherwise be penalised for making contact while tackling – contrary to Rule 9.13.

9.13 Players must not tackle unless in a position to play the ball without body contact.

Once the ball is shielded the defender is in a no-win position – an unfair situation.

 

The tackle attempt.

This was weak and inadequate to win the ball, but still an attempt to play the ball which might have succeeded if the attacker had not previously interposed her body between the ball and the defender.

I expect this defence regularly lose heavily because they are not working together. The defender behind the tackler is doing nothing but decorating the pitch and the one approaching from in front of the goal is closing too late and too slowly to tackle the turning attacker at her weakest moment (which is shown in the picture). The attacker should have had no chance of making a push pass across the goal from the base-line against three defenders if they were correctly positioned.

But it does not help that the umpire does not appear to know that there is an Obstruction Rule or simply ignores the fact. It is however possible that the umpire considered the defender to be behind the play – i.e. the attacker and the ball to be nearer to the goal than the defender was – so there could be no obstruction. But at the start of the turning action the defender was the nearer to the goal – having been obstructed (prevented from attempting a tackle), she then gave way and gave positional advantage to the attacker and is behind the play during the tackle attempt she then made – shown in the still.

It is no surprise, that without offering any reason for their opinions, both of these umpires (below) reject the possibility of obstruction – (and both attempt to change the subject, and incidentally to show how observant they are – the position of the umpire and the circle line respectively). Diligent once wrote in a forum post that “obstructions occurs, if at all, about once in three hundred matches” so he is predisposed, perhaps as a matter of faith, to reject any claim of obstructive play and no better will come from him.

redumpire makes no attempt to explain his blindness to the offence (his interpretation of the wording of the Rule) but he is anyway given to making pronouncements, as here, rather than to giving explanations for his opinions.

When players question when coached to spin turn in this way (obstructively), as they must if they have read the Rules, “Isn’t that against the Rules?” do they just accept “That is not the way the wording is interpreted.” In other words, word meaning is irrelevant? Apparently so.

Such acceptance is understandable from a player in possession of the ball, who benefits from being able to shield it without due penalty, but what about those trying to defend against a player who turns to shield the ball and prevent a tackle attempt? Do these defenders not have a voice? Maybe they keep quite because umpires are also blind to  defenders ‘crabbing’ along the base-line while ‘protecting’ the ball – an offence, which when it occurs within the circle should be penalised with a penalty stroke.

Tags:
October 7, 2016

Obstructive tackling

FIELD HOCKEY RULES

Rules of Hockey. Spin tackle.

What I have termed a spin tackle may have been happening for some time, but I have not noticed it. I can’t recall seeing it during the 2012 London Olympics or the 2014 World Cup. Now however it ‘jumps out at me’ because of the frequency of occurrence – and because it seems to be seldom penalised. 
.


.
The first GB player impedes the stick of the USA player and that obstructs her – that should have been penalised with a penalty corner (or possibly a penalty stroke). The umpire either missed that offence or allowed (a dubious) advantage because the USA player did not immediately lose possession of the ball.

The USA player does then lose close control of the ball and the second GB player gets her stick to it and ineffectually jabs at it – but the USA player, who is still in contention for it, immediately spins into a position between the ball and the GB player, barging/backing into her opponent and knocking her stick away while doing so, regains control of the ball and then moves away to give herself room to take a reverse edge shot.

(I don’t know why umpires position close to the base-line and the goal-post, at tournaments where there are video referral facilities, when from that position the umpire could not have seen much of what the USA player did to regain control of the ball.)

So we have a combination breach of Rule 9.12 Obstruction and of Rule 9.13 Tackling with body contact, concurrently by a single individual. These are fouls which usually occur between competing players, a player in possession of the ball who obstructs and an opponent who makes body contact while trying to overcome the obstruction and make a tackle; here is a still of an example of such play:-

But, as they say, the game is developing, it’s getting more like soccer every day. I don’t know what the umpires decision was in the incident shown in the photograph, she may well have allowed play to continue instead of awarding a penalty stroke for the first offence – deliberate obstruction – or even penalised the contact tackle which followed. The Obstruction Rule is intended to prevent this sort of ‘play’ occurring.

The following incident is a straightforward movement to position between an opponent and the ball to dispossess the opponent. This too is soccer-like. There is no possibility of ‘tackling’ on the forehand a player in possession of the ball from the left side in this way without body contact, and also obstruction, resulting -even a reverse stick tackle is not easy without making contact from this side, although a great deal easier than it was when the Rule was first framed, a time that stick-heads were much longer and reverse play difficult in any circumstances.

 

The wrong player was penalised (with both team and personal penalty) in the incident below.

If the ball is beyond the stick reach of chasing players there is a different situation, competing for the ball becomes a foot-race, that was not the case here, the USA player was in possession of the ball when obstructed and physically blocked.

During the incident shown in the video below, instead of attempting to play at the ball with a reverse stick, which would be more usual when attempting a tackle from the left of an opponent and trying to avoid making physical contact, the NED defender goes for a forehand challenge and in doing so inserts himself between the AUS attacker and the ball and then pivots about the ball to ‘lever’ and barge the AUS player off it. A deliberate contact offence contrary to Rule 9.3 and also to Rules 9.12 and 9.13. The award of a penalty stroke would have been an appropriate penalty, together with a yellow card – instead the video referral by the AUS team, who asked for a penalty corner, was rejected. The restart was from a 15m ball  awarded to the NED team. The decisions made in these two incidents were astonishing considering the emphasis placed on penalising break-down tackling, in the umpire coaching video, which was issued prior to the Rio Olympics by the Tournament Umpire Managers.

http://vid381.photobucket.com/albums/oo252/Conundrum_2008/AUS%20v%20NED%203%20barge%20-%20contact%20tackle_zps1ugcz2z1.mp4

Tags:
September 22, 2016

Combination fouls, Rule interpretation

FIELD HOCKEY RULES

Rules of Hockey. Combining physical contact offences with obstruction. Interpretation of obstruction.

Edited 30th September 2016. Videos with comment added.

In a recent article

https://martinzigzag.wordpress.com/2016/08/20/field-hockey-rules-obstruction-and-physical-contact/ 

I responded to the assertion that the offence of obstruction requires that there be physical contact made. The assertion is not true, but I thought it would be useful to take a fresh look at the penalising of obstruction to see how umpires respond to it when it is combined with physical contact. The results of my focused search are dismaying. It seems more likely that a defender who has been backed or shunted into will be penalised for the contact or the incident will be ignored, than that the defender will be awarded a free-ball for either offence by the opponent.

The combination of obstruction and physical contact is not new, it’s as old as hockey, but there have been developments in the technique in recent years. Here (video below) is the ‘old-fashioned’, from the side and behind obstructive barge, still in active service but not now always penalised especially if the ‘tackler’ runs from behind and between the player in possession of the ball and the ball (usually from the left) with minimal contact – this is a form of the original “running between a player and the ball” mentioned in early rule-books (another being ‘third-party’, usually occurring when both players were beyond playing distance of the ball). The umpire awarded a 23m restart for the attackers from this incident (still referred to as a corner and indicated by a comic combination of signals), seeing neither the physical contact with or the obstruction of the ball holder as a foul.

 

The video below is of an incident that occurred in a World Cup match in 2010. I was shocked by it when I first saw it. Firstly, because the separate actions of the AUS player 1) going over the top of the ball and physically blocking the GER player and 2) deliberately, and powerfully, forcing the ball into the feet of another GER player (a separate offence at the time) – are shocking in themselves because of the degree of physical force used – and secondly, because neither offence was penalised: a GER player, one of the victims of these assaults, was penalised for the forced ball-foot contact.

I am no longer shocked by such actions or by such umpiring, I have become used to it because I watch quite a lot of international level hockey via video, but I am heartily sick of hockey being played and officiated in this way. Hockey should be a game of stick and ball skills without any intentional ball shielding or physical contact at all, such skills are ‘spectacular’ when well executed (if other people prefer to see players with sticks knocking ‘seven bells’ out of each other – or even want to engage in it- there is an equally fantastic game called hurling they would do well to experience).   

This particular incident was head-on and brutal; much shielding/contact play is now carried out in a more subtle way, but it still often results in a player being knocked to the ground and to injury. 

Below is a recent example of the Dutch demonstrating to the Australians how well they have learned this trick and developed it into a ‘turn-into and lever away from the side’ approach to prising the ball away from an opponent – a slight improvement on the Australian ‘into over the top of the ball’ tactic which could possibly injure both players, but still involving strong physical contact and obstruction.

Watching the video and awaiting the outcome of the video referral by the Australians, I was wondering if the video umpire would have the ‘bottle’ to recommend a penalty stroke or go with the safe and ‘acceptable’ option of a penalty corner: he did neither. Having watched the video repeatedly, I still can’t understand why he rejected the referral and a 15m was awarded to the NED team. But interpretation and opinion are strange things, which appear to have little to do with the wording of the Rules of Hockey. At the time I posted the first video above, in January 2011, I received comment to it from a couple of individuals, that in their view the GER player had committed an offence by running into the back of the AUS player when the AUS player was in possession of the ball – I assumed, and hope, they were just trying to ‘wind me up’.

Both of the above are tackling incidents (and both contravened four Rules simultaneously, Rules. 9.3, 9.8, 9.12, and 9.13  –  plus the now deleted 9.15 in the first clip  –  which is quite an achievement considering it was a member of the opposing team that was penalised in both cases).

Direct physical contact and obstruction are also used by players already in controlled possession of the ball, especially when they are trying to break past an opponent into the circle.

.

.

.
The turn and back-in with physical contact is used so frequently as a means of achieving circle penetration (and has been for a long time now) that it has become almost standard: the uninformed might be forgiven for thinking it is legal. There is of course nothing at all wrong with turning on or with the ball but it requires good timing, to avoid physical contact – most players turn too late and/or not wide enough. Unlike soccer, in which receiving players facing their own goal are encouraged to make contact with and use that contact to ‘roll’ off an opponent, in hockey there has to be movement of a ball-holder away from an opponent rather than into an opponent and there needs to be sufficient early lateral movement made to avoid physical contact. The ‘trick’ by the GER players in the video above was clever and used a turn with high foot speed, but it was two fouls – physical contact and obstruction – although of course neither was penalised.

As always it helps when the opponent makes a charge or reaches for the ball and is committed to moving in a direction or is off-balance, so the space available for the ball holder to move into is obvious. It is very difficult at low speed or from a near stationary position to spin-turn past an opponent who is able to retreat and is alert to the possibility of a turn on the ball, but the high speed ‘spin-turn’ requires space and also considerable skill to execute successfully – i.e. lots of practice at full speed before it is used in a competitive match.
.

.

Players in possession of the ball also commonly shield it behind the feet while moving sideways or leading the ball diagonally forward and they frequently knock opponents aside or oblige opponents to give way, to avoid making physical contact with them, while doing so (opponents retreat because any physical contact by a tackler might be construed as a breach of Rule 9.13, which forbids a tackle attempt by a player from a position in which physical contact will occur, and umpires are much stricter about contact tackling than they are about ball shielding, which in fact they generally ignore – that is why the decision in the second video above so surprised me, the first thing the defender did was to ensure he made physical contact, to block off the progress of the attacker).

In the incident shown below the German player, who was himself here guilty of prior ball shielding, became so irritated with the umpire for not awarding the GER team at least a penalty corner for the play of the IND defender, that he made comment which earned him a green card.  

I can understand his frustration; it is incredible that the umpire could stand watching that passage of play and see no offence that required his intervention and a penalty award. The game continued with a side-line ball.

 

It is now very noticeable in hockey matches that players usually stand off an opponent in possession of the ball when that opponent is in a ball shielding position – the extreme opposite to the way tacklers behaved towards a ball shielding opponent prior to 1992. I hope that some day a sensible compromise will be achieved, but that day is a long way off at the moment. 

 

   
.
The comparatively trivial incident shown below was on the line of sight of the umpire who therefore had a foreshortened and blocked view of the players (the nearer player blocking view of the further) and it happened very quickly, so he missed it entirely. It looks to have been accidental, but the player in possession of the ball did run past it, even if unintentionally, so he was leading the ball, and he did then obstruct the defender – the defender seems to have had no idea he had been fouled or had got used to such fouls not being penalised, so made no protest. There is however no different in Rule between this incident and the first one shown above, both were obstruction and both were also physical contact offences. There should of course be a more severe penalty for offences which are deliberate and more so for those carried out so forcefully that they are dangerous to opponents.

 

The above incident contrasts well with the one below, which is a case of a not immoveable object meeting an irresistible force and having to give away. 


.
Turning on the ball and with the ball could and should be a quick and attractive skill, but most of it is pedestrian. Some of it is static, in that it makes no progress and is not intended to do so – it is often done with the sole aim of positioning to ‘slam’ the ball into the feet of an opponent from close range, horrible – and we can also do without the play epitomised by holding the ball in a corner of the pitch for a couple of minutes, it’s ugly, boring and makes a mockery of the Rules of the game.

Resolving the issues. 

The Obstruction Rule, concerning ball shielding by a player in possession of the ball, is easy to understand using simple criteria regarding an opponent who is trying to dispossess the ball holder. 

The tackling player must be

  1. within playing reach of the ball.
  2. demonstrating an intent to play at the ball.
  3. in a position where he or she could play directly at the ball if it were not shielded by the body or stick of the player in possession of it.

It is the second part of the third criterion above that is ‘forgotten’ “if it were not shielded by the body or stick of the player in possession of it.

We have now instead only the first part of that statement applied “in a position where he or she could play directly at the ball”, which of course presents an impossibility if a ball holder moves his or her body or moves the ball, in response to any adjustments of position made by an opponent who is trying to tackle for the ball.

There is an impossibility created because the body (spin and pivot) movements of the ball holder, who is of course closer to the ball, can be completed more quickly than those of the positioning or re-positioning tackler, who has to move around the body of the ball-holder without touching the ball-holder. And ball movements with the stick, to position the ball, so that it is maintained in a position to the far side the ball-holder’s body from the tackler, will always be made much more quickly than a tackler can adjust his or her tackling position. 

I do not believe that the FIH Rules Committee, when drafting Rule 9.12. and 9.13. intended to set up a situation in which a legal tackle for the ball by a single individual would or could be made impossible – but that is the result of the ‘interpretation’ of “attempting to play it” (from Rule 9.12 below) that is currently being applied. It can take two or three tacklers some time to ‘pry’ a ball held by an opponent out of a corner of the pitch or away from a side-line and even then it is often done at the expense of a side-line or free-ball to the opposing team.

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.

That can be made more concise by getting rid of the use of an exception and the unnecessary observation that a player with the ball can move off (move away from opponents) in any direction – and putting aside moving bodily into an opponent – we can also then achieve the clear prohibitive statement:

A player with the ball is not permitted to move (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.

Rule 9.12.Players must not obstruct an opponent who is attempting to play the ball. Forbids obstruction of a tackler. Rule 9.13. Players must not tackle unless in a position to play the ball without body contact. Effectively forbids a tackle for the ball when an opponent is shielding it with his or her body – because in such situations there may be body contact.

If the ball holder ensures that an opponent cannot even attempt to play at the ball without making body contact – by continually moving either his or her body or the ball – we have a ‘chicken and egg’ situation. Replacing what has been lost by ‘simplification and clarification’ “…if it were not shielded by the body or stick of the player in possession of it.” is perfectly fair and resolves the conundrum.

My search of previous rule-books  after writing the above, discovered wording in the Rules Interpretations section of the rule-books prior to the major change to the Obstruction Rule in 1992/3 (A change which allowed a receiver to accept and control the ball before moving away from opponents rather than after moving away to make space to receive the ball, without being guilty of an of an obstructive offence. This change remains the only change made to the Obstruction Rule since 1993 other than the clarification “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 wording (below) is not identical to that of the three criteria I remembered, there are in fact four criteria, there is also a stipulation that a tackler should not interfere with the legitimate actions of the player in possession of the ball (presumably a reminder not to make any physical contact in the days before a separate Rule 9.13 existed), but the criteria are otherwise similar statements.

BODY OBSTRUCTION AND INTERFERENCE
A player may not place any part of his body or stick between an opponent and the ball. Such actions are called obstruction and may also be referred to as screening the ball or blocking.


Obstruction can only happen when:
a) an opponent is trying to play the ball
b) an opponent is in a position to play the ball without interfering with the legitimate actions of the player with the ball
c) the ball is within playing distance or could be played if no obstruction had taken place.

Again, it is the second of the last criteria listed “or could be played if no obstruction had taken place.which is now ‘forgotten’.

These interpretations were not deleted when the entire Rules Interpretations section was removed from the back of the rule-book, they were redistributed, initially as Rule Guidance prior to 2004 and then as Explanation (of application of the Rule), often with change to the wording used, but not with a change of meaning or purpose of them. But some statements or parts of them, were lost along the way because of ‘simplification and clarification’. Unfortunately some simplification did not result in clarification, quite the reverse. For example, the following very specific list of prohibited obstructive actions, from the 2002 rule-book, didn’t all get included in the ‘streamlined’ 2004 rewrite, even though the application of the Rule would be much clearer if they (particularly the third and fourth listed) had been – and hockey would have been much the better for it.

Umpires should be aware of players who are in possession of the ball who:
back into an opponent;
• turn and try to push past an opponent;
• shield the ball with body, leg or stick and stand still when under pressure;
• drag the ball near their back foot when moving down the side-line or along the back-line;
shield the ball with the stick to prevent a legitimate tackle.

Were the missing actions (regular text) left out of the 2004 rule-book and then umpires adjusted their umpiring? Not at all, it was the other way about (just as with the offence of Forcing in 2011). Umpires were ignoring these actions so, presumably because ‘umpiring practice’ was so obviously and embarrassingly at odds with the published Rules and Advice to Umpires, that what was published was ‘adjusted’ to comply with ‘practice’. (But it is not, possible to keep up with changes to ‘practice’; backing into an opponent while in possession of the ball, a criterion that was included the 2004 rewrite and still in the Rule Explanation is now seldom penalised). 


A reminder of current ‘interpretation’ (the result of an overlooked and omitted criteria) in ‘practice’ This is the kind of play and umpiring guaranteed to drive spectators and television viewers away from the game, there is nothing attractive about it. 

.
http://vid381.photobucket.com/albums/oo252/Conundrum_2008/Whereinterpretationhasgotus_zps640e3d76.mp4

.

.
A different view.

Below is an umpire coaching video which presents an interpretation of what is not obstruction that I cannot agree with (the opening sequence for example is in my opinion only “not obstruction” because no attempt is being made to make a tackle. The backing-in then demonstrated by the ball-holder is certainly a physical contact offence, but not obstruction because there is still no attempt to make a tackle. The absence of a tackle attempt changes in the set up ‘play scenarios’ and there then is obstruction taking place).

It is the view of Cris Maloney of UmpireHockey.com, who produced this video, that physical contact is required for there to be an obstruction offence. I have been unable to get him to change his mind on this point. I asked him to withdraw this video and replace it with another based on a literal interpretation of the wording given in the Rules of Hockey, but he has not done so, which is disappointing as I need his support.

He points to current top level umpiring practice in support of his position on the matter. It is what top level umpires do – their ‘interpretations’ and ‘practice’ –  rather than the wording of the Rules of Hockey that influences the coaches of both players and umpires in their preparations for competitive matches. The wrong approach to the application of the Obstruction Rule has become a ‘runaway train’.

It is not the FIH Rules Committee who decide how the Rules of Hockey, that they draft and provide, will be applied. A strange situation that the FIH Executive, who approve the Rules drafted by the FIH RC (but have no say in the ‘interpretation’ and Rule application practiced by umpires), should address.

.


.
The video below contains action that prompted the umpire to penalise for obstruction, but the only reason I can see that he did not penalise the offender about ten second earlier is because he penalised only when the ARG player combined obstruction with physical contact, by backing into the GER player who was attempting to tackle for the ball. In other words he did not see any of the ball shielding actions prior to the physical contact as obstructive play contrary to Rule 9.12.
.


.
The GER player was (at least three times) 1) within playing reach of the ball 2) demonstrating an intention to play at the ball, and 3) the only reason he could not play at the ball was because it was (here deliberately) shielded from him by the body of the ARG player: that’s obstruction, it is incorrect to wait for obstruction to be compounded with physical contact before penalising it. It is difficult to know what criteria umpires are using to determine obstruction. Here (video below) is the same umpire, early in the same match, apparently penalising a GER player for obstruction as soon as he moves to position between the ball and the ARG player who is closing to make a tackle attempt. 
.

.
Penalising obstruction in this way is very unusual but it occurs occasionally, seemingly at random. Such penalty is in stark contrast to the lack of penalty, for long ball-shielding and holding ‘dribbles’, that are used to waste time in the corners of the pitch  – which should not be allowed to happen.

(Amusing to see the ARG player attempt to take a quick self-pass and then change his mind and pretend he was positioning the ball – in the wrong place. A second whistle is needed to control free-ball situations.)
.
.
.

May 21, 2016

Physical contact and Obstruction

FIELD HOCKEY RULES

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.

December 4, 2015

Rules 9.11 and 9.12 Opposite approaches, all and none.

FIELD HOCKEY RULES

“A suggestion of contact”

Incidents which took place in the last minute in a match between Argentina and England Women during the last World Cup qualifying rounds. I take a close look at these because they epitomizes the difference in approach to the application of Rule 9.11. which concerns ball-body contact and Rule 9.12 which is the Obstruction Rule. First the incidents on video. It is not difficult to see what is ignored and to where the focus of attention is directed.

Breakdown

PDF links to the three sets of frame photographs and text for easy viewing.

Combination 1

Combination 2

Combination 3

CP Combination 1

CP Combination 2

 

 

CP Combination 3

The text in the last frame is a little difficult to read so I will repeat it here.

There is no frame or sequence in which it is possible to be definite about there being a ball-leg contact and of course much more than that is required for there to be an offence. As this match was pre- May 2015 (when advantaged gained was reintroduced into the Rule) there needed to be clear intent to use the body to stop or deflect the ball or a voluntarily taken action to do so. There does not appear to be any sort of intent.

Even if the post May 2015 criteria, an advantage gained, is used. If there is a contact it does not slow or deflect the ball in any way and play continues just as if there was no contact – so it is reasonable to state that there was no advantage gained

– and it is far from certain that there was any ball-body contact at all.

 

The Rules

Rule 9.12. Obstruction. (omitting third party) 

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.

 

Following the above criterion there can be no doubt that the ARG player committed an obstruction offence on at least two counts. The ENG defender behind her was within playing distance of the ball and attempting to play it when her stick was kicked away from the ball. The ARG player did then move to position between the ENG player and the ball to prevent her playing at the ball by shielding it with the body.

 

Rule 9.11 Ball -use of body.

9.1 1 Field players must not stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their body.

lt is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player. The player only commits an offence if they gain an advantage or if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way.

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

“Gains an advantage” is now the first of the two criteria listed for offence after a player has used the body to stop, deflect or propel the ball; from 2006 – 2015 it was not in the Rules of Hockey as a criteria for offence for breach of Rule 9.11 (but was applied anyway).

So was there an advantage gained by the England team because of a ball-body contact? No because if there was a ball-body contact there was no deflection or acceleration or deceleration of the ball and no discernible change to play or outcome because of it.

Was there intent to use the body to stop, deflect or propel the ball with the body? None is discernible, therefore there was no offence arising from a breach of Rule 9.11. It is not even certain that there was a breach of Rule 9.11. There may even have been a breach of Rule 9.9. by the ARG player as the ball was flicked up and towards the ENG player.

 

Why are umpires applying the criterion for offence given in these two Rules in a way that is the opposite of the meaning and purpose of them? Ignoring obstructive offences (there can be no doubt that there were at least two obstruction offences by the ARG player) and treating all ball-body contact (or even the suggestion of a contact as the commentator put it) as an offence does not improve the game, it spoils it.

   

 

 

October 31, 2015

Rewrite: Rule 9.12. Obstruction.

FIELD HOCKEY RULES

A suggested rewrite  of the Rules of hockey.

The current 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.

Action. Amendment.

Reason. The Rule is a fundamental element of the fair conduct of a non-contact game and is at present almost totally ignored due to deviant interpretation of Rule purpose and word meaning.

Comments and suggestions are invited from those who can remember the time the Obstruction Rule was properly applied. For those for whom the existence of it is a revelation, and possibly an unpleasant surprise, Hi.

The Obstruction Rule obliges a player in possession of the ball in contested situations to move the ball beyond the reach of opponents (by dribbling or passing) and to possess the ability, the stick-work skills, to retain the ball while facing opponents who are competing for it.

Hockey is not like soccer in this respect: soccer is a game which permits physical contact in challenges for the ball and also allows a player in possession of the ball to shield it from opponents and even hold them off, to prevent them from playing at the ball – hockey Rules permit neither action, physical contact nor ball-shielding. That naturally means that hockey is more difficult to learn to play properly than soccer is, but playing hockey without an Obstruction Rule is akin to playing tennis without an net – it requires little skill and the side/player in possession will almost always score. Keeping possession of the ball becomes for competent players almost as easy as it is in basketball, but hockey then becomes duller than basketball because the time, shooting and zone limits imposed on basketball players, to prevent endless possession by one side, do not exist in hockey.

The suggested rewrite below is basically the Rule as it now exists, it adds only a clarification of “move into” and the concept of an ‘on-side’ tackler to the existing Rule – the latter something which has always been there but never stated – and restores “must move away” in place of the present “is permitted to move off”: a clear instruction replacing an empty statement, empty in that it is neither prohibitive or directive and serves no purpose.

Suggestion.

Rule 9.12  Players must not shield the ball from an opponent with any part of the body or with the stick in a way that prevents or delays that opponent playing directly at the ball when that opponent would otherwise be immediately able to do so.

Shielding the ball to prevent an opponent playing at the ball is called obstruction.

A player in possession of the ball illegally obstructs an opponent with his body or stick when:-

the opponent is level with or own goal-side of the ball (‘on-side’ of the ball)            and
the ball is within the playing reach of the opponent who intends to play it

and
the opponent is demonstrating an intent to play at the ball                                     and
the only reason the opponent cannot immediately play directly at the ball is because the direct path to it is obstructed by (any part of) the body or stick of a player in possession of the ball.

Obstructive ball shielding is therefore an offence that has to be forced by an opponent while demonstrating an intent to play at the ball or positioning to tackle and in so doing demonstrates that the path to the ball is obstructed; the opponent who is intent on playing the ball is prevented from doing so only because the ball is shielded by the body or stick of the player in possession of it.

An obstructive offence may be forced by an opponent immediately that opponent comes to within playing reach of the ball and demonstrates an intent to play at it.

A player in possession of the ball

who is :-

(a)   faced with an ‘on-side’ opponent who is within playing distance of the ball  and who is attempting to play at the ball, may not move (turn) with or on the ball to position the body and/or stick between the ball and the opponent with the effect of blocking that opponent’s direct path to the ball and by this means or by moving the ball to the same effect, prevent a legal attempt by an opponent to play at the ball

A player in possession of the ball who is:-

(b)   beyond the playing reach of a closing opponent who turns on or with the ball to position the body between that opponent and the ball or move the ball to the same effect IS NOT allowed the time and space leeway, after the opponent has closed to within playing distance of the ball, that is, exceptionally, given to a player in the act of receiving and controlling the ball. The ball must be kept beyond the playing reach of a closing opponent in such circumstances, OR before the opponent is obstructed in his or her attempt to play at the ball the player in possession of the ball must again turn on or with the ball to face opponents or position the ball, so that it is no longer shielded from opponents.

A stationary or slow moving ball-holder who obliges an opponent who is intent on playing at the ball to ‘go around’ a ball-shielding position to attempt to play at the ball, when that opponent would otherwise be able to play at the ball directly, is obstructing that opponent.

Within the criteria given above, an Obstruction Offence occurs when a player in possession of the ball, whether moving or stationary, positions the body in relation to the ball or the ball in relation to the body, so that the execution of a legal attempt to play at the ball by an ‘onside’ opponent, who would otherwise be able to immediately play directly at the ball, is not possible without that opponent having to move around the body or stick of the player in possession of the ball in order to play at it.

.
A player in possession of the ball :-

must not move while leading and shielding the ball with any part of the body including the legs, into the playing reach of an opponent or move bodily into an opponent, causing contact, or by moving towards an opponent while shielding the ball, oblige an opponent to give way to avoid body contact (Rule 9.3).

 

The Tackler.

A tackle may not be attempted from a position where physical contact will result (Rule 9.13), but obstruction may be demonstrated; it is in fact a requirement that obstruction is demonstrated for the offence to occur i.e. that a legal attempt to play at the ball is being prevented.

A player who is within playing distance of the ball and intends to make a tackle, but who is not in a position of balance from which a tackle attempt may be made, is for example, facing or moving or reaching in the wrong direction to play at the ball with a reasonable expectation of making contact with it with the stick, cannot be obstructed except as already noted, when the movement is forced to avoid physical contact from an opponent who is leading and shielding the ball.

.

The ‘Receiving’ Exception to the Rule.

Exceptionally, a player who is in the act of receiving and controlling the ball is temporally exempted from the possibility of a ball shielding offence.

A receiving player is permitted to receive the ball while facing in any direction and while either in a stationary position or while moving. Such a receiving player will not be obstructing any opponent who is within playing distance of the ball and attempting to play at it, even if shielding the ball from that opponent while receiving it.The receiving player, however, having received the ball and controlled it, must in these circumstances then immediately either:-

a) pass the ball away or

b) move away from opponents with the ball to put and keep it beyond their playing reach and/or turn on or with the ball to face opponents, so that the ball is no longer shielded from them.

 

It will be necessary for a receiving player who elects  to turn on or over the ball, after the ball is in control or as the ball is controlled, to:-

a) make such a turn 1) before an opponent is within playing reach of the ball or 2) after having taken the ball beyond the playing reach of the opponent or

b) create space for a turn having duped the opponent into moving or reaching in the wrong direction, before there has been any obstruction.

 

Once an opponent is within playing reach of the ball the only options then available to the ball holder will be:-

a) to either turn on the ball while moving the ball away from the reach of the opponent (which may be achieved with foot-work and stick-work ) or

b) to move away with the ball to put and keep the it beyond the opponent’s reach, and then to turn on or with the ball  – and/or to pass the it away.

 

Once the ball has been received and controlled the receiving player may not,  in a way that shields the ball from opponents who are within playing distance of the ball and demonstrating an intent to play it, dwell on the ball in a stationary or near stationary position or while so positioned move the ball to shield it and thereby prevent a legal attempt to play at it.

After having received and controlled the ball, making feints over the ball while stationary or slow moving or ‘dribbling’, which comprises of ‘weaving’ from side to side without taking the ball beyond the playing reach of the opponent and while maintaining a ball shielding position (thus preventing an opponent from playing at the ball or from positioning to do so), will be considered an obstruction offence.

The receiving exception to the Obstruction Rule facilitates the receiving and controlling of the ball and continuation of play without the receiver immediately committing an obstruction offence when closely marked by an opponent who is intent on playing at the ball – nothing more.

The ‘Manufactured’ Exception to the Rule.

A player in possession of the ball who plays it to the far side of an opponent (who is, for example, attempting to channel the ball holder or block the ball with the stick or execute a tackle) and then runs into that opponent claiming to be obstructed, has not been obstructed if there has been no movement to obstruct by the defending player. If there is physical contact the player who was in possession of the ball is, in these circumstances, the one more likely to have committed an offence. (This was a part of the previously deleted Forcing Rule which should be restored).

 

Third-Party Obstruction.

A player who is not in possession of the ball who moves in front of or blocks the path of an opponent to stop that opponent legitimately playing or attempting to play the ball is obstructing. This form of obstruction is known as third-party obstruction because the obstructing player often carries out this action so that a team-mate (the second party) has more time and/or space to reach and/or play the ball. It can also be regarded as an impeding or even as a physical contact offence in these circumstances.

It is not necessary for the obstructed player to be within playing reach of the ball at the time a third-party offence is committed, it is only necessary that but for the offence, the obstructed player would have been able to intercept the ball or would have been in a position to challenge a team-mate of the obstructing player for the ball and was denied that opportunity. This form of obstruction is often carefully planned to create passing space in mid-field and is often deliberately carried out during penalty corners to a) give the stopper and shooting player more time to set up and make a shot and b) to block line of sight to the ball to defenders. It is in the latter case often a very dangerous action and should be watched for and penalised. 

For there to be a third party obstruction It is generally necessary for the obstructing player to move to block the path to the ball of the obstructed player and third party obstruction cannot otherwise occur, but exceptionally, a player in possession of the ball may deliberately use a stationary team-mate as a shield by dribbling the ball very close to him or her so as to impose the team-mate between an opponent who is intent on tackling for the ball – leaving the tackler, with the choice of going around or stopping or barging into the stationary third player i.e. in an obstructed position.

Stick Obstruction 

The same principle applies to stick obstruction as applies to obstruction with the body. Positioning the stick between the stick of an opponent and the ball is obstruction if that action prevents the opponent playing the ball. It makes no difference if the stick of the player in possession of the ball is in contact with the ball or not. If, for example, the stick is positioned Indian dribble style with the stick-head over the top front of the ball in contact with and covering it, or the stick is used away from the ball to fend off the stick of a tackler as the tackler’s stick is moved towards the ball. Both these kinds of action are obstructive, if direct playing of the ball by an opponent, who is within playing distance of the ball and is attempting to play at it, is thereby prevented.

 

The other difficulty the soccer player coming to hockey has is the insistence that the ball not be played with the back (the rounded side) of the stick. This often causes the novice player, unable to easily turn the stick-head, to turn anti-clockwise with the ball on the face side of the stick-head and in so doing to obstruct opponents (such obstruction, even by top level players, is currently being ignored).

Since the introduction of the use of the edges of the stick to play the ball in the 1990’s (previously specifically forbidden) the retaining of the offence of back-sticks makes little sense, especially as even with slow-motion video replay it is often impossible to determine if a player used the edge or back of the stick to play (hit) the ball.

Abolishing the offence of back-sticks would make introduction to hockey to the novice significantly easier and also considerably broaden the range of stick/ball skills available to the competent player and would not now lead to a fundamental change in the way hockey is played (or indeed to the ‘Indian dribble’ disappearing – field hockey stick-work is not and would not become, similar to the style of stick-work used in ice-hockey – not least because the sticks used as well as the objects played with (ball and puck) are dissimilar). 

Ignoring the Obstruction Rule, an action which does fundamentally alter the way in which the game is played, while being strict about back-sticks offences (where they are seen) is absurd.

There are some obstructive situations which are neither clearly by a ball-holder nor clearly ‘third party’. This article takes a look at one such incident.http://wp.me/pKOEk-2yt