2013 rule changes published - discussion of 2013 Outdoor rules

Discussion in '2013 Official FIH Rules Book' started by redumpire, Jun 29, 2012.

  1. deegum

    deegum FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    2,370
    Likes Received:
    33
    Not according to diligent :
    Quote from keely,,:,http://www.fieldhockeyforum.com/threads/ball-stationary-at-a-free-hit.14549/ post #2

    And I'm saying that close to the circle it matters. and not merely for a self pass.
     
  2. Trig

    Trig FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Messages:
    614
    Likes Received:
    152
    Location:
    Norfolk
    And as I said, that's how it's being blown across the world?!
     
  3. redumpire

    redumpire FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,581
    Likes Received:
    2,716
    It's certainly how I blow it and how I've seen others blowing it, at all levels; but no doubt there's "video evidence" of one umpire blowing it differently on one occasion in 1995, thereby proving that the entire hockey rules' edifice is crumbling around our ears.
     
    jaduong likes this.
  4. jaduong

    jaduong FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    Messages:
    2,400
    Likes Received:
    222
    quite, right, Trig. i really think i hallucinate at times when i am watching field hockey nowadays since it seems very different from Deegum's description to what i actually witness.

    If we're picking the fruits from Keely's posts, then i also think the phrase '...So "stationary" means whatever makes this clear. So if the ball is in motion when a self-pass may be taken, I need to see the ball stop the forward motion with an opposing directional action before it is moved off again...' and the subsequent paragraph explaining that the ball does not have to actually technically be completely motionless is pretty important to her definition of stopped, and somewhat contradictory to your own.


    and, of course, it is not to say that even the best umpires will not get these things wrong once in a while despite their best efforts.
     
  5. Trig

    Trig FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Messages:
    614
    Likes Received:
    152
    Location:
    Norfolk
    :D
     
  6. redumpire

    redumpire FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,581
    Likes Received:
    2,716
    And for the benefit of clarity here's what Keely said in full, with a few key passages highlighted by me:

     
  7. phrack

    phrack FHF Top Player

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2007
    Messages:
    368
    Likes Received:
    25
    One defender out of the game briefly because they did not comply with the rules.

    It's not there to allow defenders to get 5, it's there to make the location of the FH obvious.

    Paging Dr Hockeyfish, we need another linguistics speech, stat!
     
    Hockeyfish and Nij like this.
  8. Hockeyfish

    Hockeyfish FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,174
    Likes Received:
    293
    All of this is with the caveat that in the attacking 23, I'm pretty fussy about the location of a free hit. Frankly, there's not a lot of pitch space in that area anyway for the ball to roll away from the foul without going into an area where a free hit can't be taken from anyway (i.e. inside the 'dots' around the circle), especially when you consider that play is generally going to be going towards goal.

    In practice, I find that if there is a defender taken out of the game because the FHA is not in exactly the same position as the foul, it's normally the defender that conceded the free hit in the first place. In which case, I don't care if that defender is 'taken out' because a quickly taken free hit in the right place would mean the defender can't interfere anyway. How can you unfairly take someone of of the game at a moment when they wouldn't have been in it anyway?! I've always understood that part of the point of the quick self pass is precisely so that offending defenders can be taken out of the game, in order to discourage 'soft' fouls that would otherwise hold play up.

    The day I have to stop the game to allow defenders to get 5 before we get on with the game is the day I'll run for a place on the Rules Committee.

    Mod edit to delete unnecessary comment. Think again HF, and you'll be glad that not too many people saw that!
     
    Nij likes this.
  9. Hockeyfish

    Hockeyfish FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,174
    Likes Received:
    293
    Yes and no. Facts are facts, after all, and it is fact that in my experience, that does happen, even up to and including regional level. I don't like the fact that Southend United are in League 2 again and play crap football most of the time, but I have to accept it's true!

    But I share your opinion that the deleted comment might have caused more controversy than it was worth. I owe you one!
     
  10. Zakalwe

    Zakalwe FHF Newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    1
    Hi All. First post on this forum!

    Sorry to dig up this old thread, but a quick question about the new "own-goal" rule. Personally, as a keeper, I hate it. First thing I'm going to to is trip all my straps down so there's no chance of contact if I'm trying to jump out of the way of a ball hit outside the D (should have done that ages ago, I know...) My guess is that this rule would probably add around 5ish goals/season based on last year's memories of defensive deflections in the D so it's not *too* bad.

    My question, though, is related to the concept of people hitting the ball at the keeper from outside the D hoping for a speculative rebound. I'm sure that's not really happened at the Euro's where the standard is pretty high, but I can imagine it being a bit more of an issue in lower leagues, especially against less experienced keepers.

    The question is "what is considered dangerous play" in this situation? Is a ball played at head hight outside the D aimed at the keeper's head "dangerous" or not? I once had a Surrey umpire say "There's no such thing as dangerous play against the keeper" to me, as I was recovering from being smacked in the head by a ball that was going nowhere near the goal (I rather hope this is not a universal opinion); so where is the line here?

    I really do worry about junior keepers struggling with this.

    Zak
     
  11. Trig

    Trig FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Messages:
    614
    Likes Received:
    152
    Location:
    Norfolk
    IMO if a ball is played into the circle from outside, and is not dangerous to any field player, then it isn't going to be dangerous to a GK!
     
  12. Nij

    Nij FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    May 22, 2012
    Messages:
    1,676
    Likes Received:
    632
    I think I'm old-hand enough now to say: welcome! And enjoy!

    Now: if the ball has been deliberately raised from outside the circle by a hit, then this should be simple to deal with.
    Whoever did it should be 1] penalised under rule 9.9 and 2] told in no uncertain terms that that's a stupid thing to do.
     
  13. Diligent

    Diligent FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2007
    Messages:
    4,192
    Likes Received:
    927
    Location:
    Hampshire (South Coast of England)
    Most counties have a few like that, but as they retire, the majority of more enlightened umpires grows. A ball at head height into the the circle should usually be penalised as dangerous.
     
  14. DavidBurns

    DavidBurns FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2011
    Messages:
    621
    Likes Received:
    102
    Location:
    Lytham St Annes UK
    dont forget to have all your defenders shave their heads too.

    I really cant see this happening too much, as Nij said, there is enough in the rules to deal with an intentionally raised hit into the circle.

    and if its legally played in at that height, a height were no forward can legally play it. A GK should be daft enough to try and play it, then i think they deserve to concede!
     
  15. Ballingdon

    Ballingdon FHF Top Player

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2007
    Messages:
    342
    Likes Received:
    49
    Location:
    London
    I am expecting to see a change to the definition of "shot at goal" too.
    If a cross is hit into a crowded D and deflects only off a defender towards the goal , a number of interesting possibilities arise
    1. If it deflects upwards, above shoulder height, can a defender (non-GK) play it with stick? (legitmate if a defender deflection IS a "shot at goal")
    2. If it comes off a defender's foot first, then goes towards goal, you have to play advantage in case it goes in, but will have calls for PC ringing in ears! Then you have to sell "advantage" ( or just blow)
    3. As 2. but then hits another defender body on line - has to be a PS now! Seems a bit harsh if the attacker has just cracked the ball in!

    It would seem reasonable that "shot at goal" now includes a "defender touch"?

    NEXT POINT
    At a PC too ? Under new rule, why bother bringing the ball into the D for a shot? Just whack it at the defence from just outside the D. You still have a chance of attacking deflection but also, when it hits a defender foot , you get another PC, or a goal , or a chance of PS on the second deflection.
    Big incentive for defence to get out of the "firing line" at goal.
     
  16. duncedunce

    duncedunce FHF Starter

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2011
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    4
    This was a point of discussion with my club last night. Someone suggested just such a ploy: a short pass to an attacker who can then drill the ball across parallel to the goal line, about 4 or 5 metres out, looking for a deflection.

    After talking it through, the team decided that it was too easy to defend the ball away from the goal (narrowing the channel to defend) compared to using a conventional DF, drill or flick from in front of goal. They thought it only of any use as an occasional 'surprise' play.

    On your 'defending a shot at goal' point, I suspect (and hope) that the final FIH wording will be carefully chosen to allow defenders to defend any ball which, if subsequently untouched by a player, would be on a trajectory that would result in a goal (irrespective of whether they are the 'last' defender) - which to me seems to be the intent of the current rule.

    I suspect that in the 'advantage' scenario, the advice would be to blow for a PC immediately unless the ball is certain to go in the goal without a defender getting near it. I would suggest that it is neater and easier to 'sell', and a PC at most levels is generally a better advantage. That should avoid the 'foot deflection advantage and then illegitimate stop on the goal line' problem.

    It is good to raise these scenarios, as it has got me thinking through such situations (and will no doubt elicit some comment on here) and so I should be better prepared when these or similar arise. Thank you Ballingdon.
     
  17. phrack

    phrack FHF Top Player

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2007
    Messages:
    368
    Likes Received:
    25
    1. You would expect this to be the case. The FIH will hopefully clarify it so we don't have another topic to 'discuss'.
    2. You could always hold the whistle until the defense stops the ball going towards the goal. You're not giving the attack two bites.
    3. Yes.

    Regarding the PC.. You're talking about not moving the ball 2-3 inches to be inside the circle to guarantee if it goes in the goal, it's a goal vs hitting and hoping someone touches it. Sure you could do it but it makes more sense to hit it from inside.

    They may just remove the shot at goal piece that allows a defender to play the ball above shoulder height.
    9.7 Players must not play the ball with any part of the stick when the ball is above shoulder height except that defenders are permitted to use the stick to stop or deflect a shot at the ball to prevent the scoring of a goal at any height

    When saving a shot at goal, a defender must not be penalised if their stick is not motionless or is travelling towards the ball while attempting to stop or deflect the shot ball. Only if the ball is genuinely hit while above shoulder height and a goal is prevented should a penalty stroke be awarded.

    Or something.
     
  18. Zakalwe

    Zakalwe FHF Newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    1
    Thanks for the replies!

    Hmm.. Yes, I guess it has to be, really, doesn't it. but there are some close calls, right? - if a defender is standing on the goal line and (for whatever reason) decides to play a ball hit in from outside the D, if it hits his stick then his foot (with the ball going towards goal) then it's a PS, but if it hits his foot then his stick it's a PC (or possibly no foul at all if there are no attackers around)?

    (Or what if it hits one foot, and then the other ??)
     
  19. Trig

    Trig FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Messages:
    614
    Likes Received:
    152
    Location:
    Norfolk
    As with all new rules most of the scenarios that get discussed here and other forums tend not to happen once the actual playing of these rules happen. Some teams may try things as you suggest, but soon realise that they don't work. The better teams will carry on playing good hockey and wont rely on silly little possible defections off defenders feet etc.

    As for playing the ball above shoulder height "if" it comes of a defenders foot or body, how many times have you seen that happen in games before this season? I can't remember one!

    I don't see these new rules changing the game that much at all.
     
  20. Ballingdon

    Ballingdon FHF Top Player

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2007
    Messages:
    342
    Likes Received:
    49
    Location:
    London
    As Zakalwe above says : ball hits foot then stick = PC , stick then foot = PS. Sometimes it happens too fast sometimes
    I agree that good teams will still play good hockey .. but "grass roots" hockey is much bigger than top level. We have a few weeks of this summer holiday to sell these changes to a large number of grass roots umpires. I think the "own goal" is a significant change to the game. Let's see.
     

Share This Page