2013 rule changes published - discussion of 2013 Outdoor rules

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

  1. Kilmory

    Kilmory Administrator
    FHF Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Messages:
    5,117
    Likes Received:
    1,003
    Location:
    Wirral, UK
    This made me laugh thank you. I think PS and an automatic YC. Not for the offence, but so the player can hide their blushes in the dug out.
     
  2. Trig

    Trig FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Messages:
    614
    Likes Received:
    152
    Location:
    Norfolk
    Could you just clarify why hitting his foot then his stick is only a PC?
     
  3. Nij

    Nij FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    May 22, 2012
    Messages:
    1,676
    Likes Received:
    632
    Stick then foot = PS. Offence which prevents the probable scoring of a goal.
    Foot then stick = PC. Foot inside the circle, didn't stop a goal but has affected play.

    Or even, foot then stick = play on. The offence hasn't disadvantaged the opponent, just like a foot inside the circle which then goes over the backline can be a long corner.
     
  4. Kilmory

    Kilmory Administrator
    FHF Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Messages:
    5,117
    Likes Received:
    1,003
    Location:
    Wirral, UK
    I think we are talking about the ball hitting the foot but not stopping a goal scoring opportunity.

    That's what I read in all the situations, the first contact not preventing a goal but deflecting the ball towards the goal. This would mean that the second touch was the goal saving action.
     
  5. Hockeyfish

    Hockeyfish FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,174
    Likes Received:
    293
    I sense a potential new 'myth' emerging here. Ball hit into circle from outside, hits defender on both feet near goal line = automatic flick. In reality, can we be sure *enough* that it was going in after it hit the first foot? Unless we are, we can't be certain that the second foot prevented a probable goal.

    Trig's right though, many of these rarely if ever happen. In fact it'll probably never come up (until it goes unchallenged in a big match or something, say like an Olympic Final? Nah, that's way too unlikely...) :p
     
  6. Twister

    Twister FHF Regular Player

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Messages:
    400
    Likes Received:
    21
    I would suggest that we should continue to blow unintentional foot contact in the circle exactly the same as before - no offence unless an attacker is disadvantaged. If there is no offence, there can be no PS.

    All that changes is the consequence of the ball going over the backline between the posts if there is contact in the circle - it's now a goal rather than a long corner (in the same way that the ball deliberately ove the back line has the consequence that the restart is a PC, but the action of putting the ball over the backline in itself is not an offence).

    So any unintentional foot contact in the circle should be play on as before. What has changed perhaps is that you could get a situation where there is intentional foot/body contact in the circle to prevent the scoring of a goal which has only been touched by a defender in the circle. This I would suggest should be a PS.
     
  7. Hockeyfish

    Hockeyfish FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,174
    Likes Received:
    293
    ...so Twister, you've NEVER blown an unintentional foot on the line preventing a legitimate shot going in as a PS before?

    IMHO even if it's unintentional, if it's illegitimate and it prevents a probable goal, it's a PS. So, ball payed in to the circle, hits defender's right foot just in front of the line, then the left foot on the line, preventing the ball going in the goal, under the new rules you've illegitimately stopped a probable goal. How would you propose selling anything but a PS under those circumstances?
     
  8. Kilmory

    Kilmory Administrator
    FHF Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Messages:
    5,117
    Likes Received:
    1,003
    Location:
    Wirral, UK
    Which is what Zakalwe said.

    I can't see the offences changing, it's just that now the ball doesn't have to have been touched by an attacker in the D for there to be a 'probable goal'.
     
  9. Twister

    Twister FHF Regular Player

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Messages:
    400
    Likes Received:
    21
    Because to give a PS there has to be an "offence". And I would suggest that unintentional foot contact is not an offence.

    Take your scenario, but outside the circle and if there was no one there you'd probably wave play on.
    In a corner of the circle with no one there, you'd probably play on.
    Now because of an odd combination of deflections and because it's in front of the goal, you're suggesting it's a PS?
    If the player was stood in front of the goal and the ball hit one foot then deflected off the other but away from goal, you'd probably play on.

    It just doesn't seem proportionate to give the PS...
     
  10. Trig

    Trig FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Messages:
    614
    Likes Received:
    152
    Location:
    Norfolk
    I'm sorry Twister, but if a ball hits a defenders foot and stops a goal being scored, however the ball got to that foot, the correct decision and always will be is to award a PS.
     
    Hockeyfish likes this.
  11. Hockeyfish

    Hockeyfish FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,174
    Likes Received:
    293
    So, have you ever given a PS for a foot on the line stopping a probable goal?
     
  12. Twister

    Twister FHF Regular Player

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Messages:
    400
    Likes Received:
    21
    Yes of course.

    You are probably all right - it probably will be a PS for simplicity's sake - just doesn't feel right (yet...)
     
  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)
    Twister does it feel better like this:
    a) ball from outside circle hits defender's foot, which sends it away from the backline/goal: PC, and still a PC even if it hits the other foot.
    b) ball from outside circle hits defender's foot, which sends it towards the goal: goal unless the other foot stops it reaching the goal, which would be PS, or just a PC if the defender is quick enough to save the goal with a stick. Could an umpire get way with 'play on' in the latter circumstance? I think not.
     
  14. Twister

    Twister FHF Regular Player

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Messages:
    400
    Likes Received:
    21
    No - doesn't make it any better! Can't imagine many umpires being in a position to judge the minutae of the deflections either.

    More likely scenario is a hit from outside which deflection off a GK / defender onto the foot of another defender on the line who has no time to react.

    Not sure why a) is a PC either. Surely play on if there is no-one around.
     
  15. keely

    keely FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2006
    Messages:
    10,403
    Likes Received:
    778
    Location:
    Calgary, Canada
    We have to judge it exactly the same as we did when the attacker's hit came from inside the D. We judged then whether it was a probable goal, unintentionally stopped, did we not?

    You're making it a lot more complicated than it is, Twister!
     
  16. Justin

    Justin FHF Super Star

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,810
    Likes Received:
    43
    Location:
    Spain
    So let me get this straight.....a long back pass(or overhit through ball) to a defender in front of his/her goal (seen quite often in the OGs), is, for whatever reason, mis-trapped and either hits his foot or goes in the goal.
    Are we now giving a goal for what would previously have been a LC? That really does seem disproportionate ...HUGELY so!!

    I assume that, if accidental foot contact were to prevent a probable goal, the advice about the opposition's not being disadvantaged would still, as now, mean Play On?....... unless, of course, you think that being deprived of a probable goal is a disadvantage..:rolleyes: in which case it would have, presumably, to be a PS.

    Disproportionate???...I'd say so.....especially on less-than-perfect surfaces where 'mis-traps' are quite commonplace!

    Of course, I accept that I may have completely misunderstood the, IMO unnecessary , new rule!
    It's like making a cosmetic change in a piece of working software ...... the unconsidered consequences can be dire......:rolleyes:
     
  17. deegum

    deegum FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    2,370
    Likes Received:
    33
    Can't find it mentioned anywhere, ie here or in the published notice. but if the ball is played in by a defender is a goal scored?
    Extreme example: there is a restart, the side scored against back pass, for some reason get it back in the circle and put it into their own goal no attacker has touched it. Goal!!
    more likely, there is a tactical back pass into the circle, defender mucks it up, GOAL!!!!!!!!!!
    Is this what the HRB want?
     
  18. keely

    keely FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2006
    Messages:
    10,403
    Likes Received:
    778
    Location:
    Calgary, Canada
    Yes.

    NB. The sky is falling.
     
    Nij likes this.
  19. deegum

    deegum FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    2,370
    Likes Received:
    33
    Just surprises me, keely.
    Such a big change without any prior hint of it.

    NB. I suppose we shouldn't worry much about hockey, given your weather forecast.
     
  20. redumpire

    redumpire FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,581
    Likes Received:
    2,716
    Guys, Here's what it is anticipated that the new rule will say according to the FIH letter:
    No ifs, buts, or maybes. If the ball hits any stick, or a defender's/goal-keeper's body, in the D and then goes into the goal, it's a goal.

    Yes, there may be an oddity or an extreme event in 1 game in every 10,000, but, honestly, when did you last see anything like any of the type of event described by Justin or Deegum actually occur on a hockey pitch?
     

Share This Page