5 metre requirements, a different approach ...worth considering?

Discussion in '2009 Offical FIH Rules' started by justin-old, Dec 7, 2009.

  1. justin-old

    justin-old FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2006
    Messages:
    3,101
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ha....safely( for the moment and for you!) on t'other side of the pond, eh, RA? ;)
     
  2. justin-old

    justin-old FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2006
    Messages:
    3,101
    Likes Received:
    1
    "(I hope that wasn't too much of a 'rant'...)"

    Well, yes, really...the insults started at about post #5 and then we got into 'unpleasantries' about the likelihood of the HRB's taking the slightest notice of any discussions we have here .... there were a few attempts to continue discussing the proposals, but generally it's been all disappointingly downhill...after what I thought was a mainly constructive start :)
     
  3. deegum

    deegum FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    2,370
    Likes Received:
    33
    I think it is a legitimate continuing criticism of the FIH to say that amendments/ deletions are not explained.

    I'm sure we can all think of one or two subjects where there has been strenuous disagreement over years, and silence on them from the FIH , where a short statement would clarify matters, even if not to the satisfaction of all.
     
  4. redumpire

    redumpire FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,491
    Likes Received:
    2,640
     
  5. deegum

    deegum FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    2,370
    Likes Received:
    33
    I know the feeling , red.
     
  6. justin-old

    justin-old FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2006
    Messages:
    3,101
    Likes Received:
    1
    I think I'm done here ...thanks for reading....those who did...and for the constructive feedback.

    I understand that I'll get nowhere with #4 but don't see any sensible argument against #5.

    This is not YAGE ...only 'resignation' (in both senses) with/from this thread.

    Just finally to summarise the bullet points.....for those who don't wish to read the 1000 words at the beginning:

    • Introduce a requirement that a free-hit awarded to the attacking side within 5m of the circle must be played out of the dashed circle before it can be played into the shooting circle.
    • Remove the requirement that all players be 5m from a free-hit awarded in the 23m area, revert
    to defenders only to be 5m.
    • Remove the requirement that the ball be moved 5m, if a self-pass within the attacked 23 is used, before the ball is played into the circle
    • Remove the prohibition on propelling the ball into the circle directly from a free awarded in the 23m area.
    • Play advantage if an attacker chooses to take a self-pass without allowing opponents sufficient time to retreat 5m, thus allowing opponents to engage immediately the ball is played.
    • Do not try to award both an advantage play and a free-hit at the same time – it's one or the other, and with a free-hit there are criteria to be met by both sides which require time.
    • Allow a direct lift of a 'free-hit' with any stroke except a hit.
     
  7. Neo

    Neo Technical Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    652
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry to come late into this - whilst it is possible to quickly scan, considered words can take longer to compose.

    And I don't quite have them yet, but my overview of the changes you propose is that it has to be put in this context:
    that we have one set of rules that have to be adaptable enough to be applied to the wide range of hockey competition skills from beginner up to international standard.

    I can see problems with at least a couple of your suggestions in the lower leagues that may work against the principle of protection against the danger of the powerful strike directly into the circle.
     

Share This Page