Aerials - attention to the landing zone

Discussion in 'Outdoor Umpiring Questions' started by Diligent, Feb 20, 2017.

  1. Diligent

    Diligent FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2007
    Messages:
    4,093
    Likes Received:
    868
    Location:
    Hampshire (South Coast of England)
    Interesting one at a development event on Saturday - league match in the middle of what we appoint to, with mid-grade umpires, watched from sidelines by 3 groups each with an umpire coach and 3 umpires, also mid-grade and developing. One incident I saw so differently from the 2 on-pitch umpires and the 3 with me, that I was left wondering whether my mental recall was faulty. I woke up this morning (2 days later) with a possible explanation: when an aerial goes up, look to the landing zone... now!

    Red aerials down the line from halfway just above the reach of white defender 5m in front of us, bounces to shoulder height of red/white together just inside 23. After slight delay (for advantage, or is this bounce an aerial?), far umpire awards FHD and our sideline umpire appears to agree. Within a minute it is half time and the red attacker goes to discuss decision with umpires - red seems to be (politely) aggrieved; umpires apparently content with their decision. It is obviously a point for our group to discuss, but unfortunately not brought up at the after-game review, where we focussed on themes rather than incidents.

    What the 5 mid-grade umpires saw (3 in group and 2 on pitch) was the white defender stood ready to receive, with a red attacker almost in contact behind, as the ball arrived at shoulder level from its bounce. The slight delay in whistle was reasonable to see if white retained control/advantage, but the ball ran free so FHD.

    What I saw (but was persuaded that my mental replay was faulty) was the red attacker all set for the shoulder-level bounce, when a white defender appears square across his face, with enough contact to knock red half a step back. That's not just an approach within 5: it's with a stick passing 6 inches in front of the opponent's nose, and physical contact. I'm ready for a big whistle, probably a card, and a PC as it's inside the 23. Oh, right... maybe not? But not at all surprised that the red attacker went to discuss it.​

    This morning it dawns on me (I think): the 3 umpires in the group and, it seems, both on the pitch, had their attention grabbed by the mid-flight reach up and miss, with possibly some distraction by the thought "He can't... oh yes, he can". When their attention switched to the landing zone, the white defender was stood ready, with the red attacker at his shoulder. I seem to have enough practice at ignoring the flight, and looking to the landing zone, to get there that vital half a second earlier.

    Estimate of the timeline, assuming the ball reached 4m above the pitch, would have the ball arriving at shoulder height: 0.3 seconds after the bounce, 1.2 seconds after passing above 1st defender, 2.1 seconds after the lift. My recall is that white defender's shoulder contact was just before the bounce, and I saw him run the last 2 or 3 strides, so half a second before arrival.

    A long post for a 1 second incident, but maybe something to learn from it?
     
    #1 Diligent, Feb 20, 2017
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2017
  2. Willowsacorns

    Willowsacorns FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2012
    Messages:
    517
    Likes Received:
    206
    What I read here is you state you saw something that 5 others including both on pitch umpires did not. What you saw led you to believe a big whistle, card, PC were in order. You state stick raised within inches of face and contact to "knock red...back" You also mention the player being politely aggrieved.

    If your recall is correct (and with a YHTBT I am not suggesting it isn't but....) I would anticipate that the reaction would not have been polite disagreement at all but loud calls by player/players/coach etc etc immediately the infringement happened.

    There is an alternative, I suppose, in that at times let's say some of those with whistles look for infringements to give cards/big whistles and this is a situation that catches many out.

    Was the game videoed? I would certainly hope so given the number of officials around as it would serve to prove your point very well.
     
  3. Diligent

    Diligent FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2007
    Messages:
    4,093
    Likes Received:
    868
    Location:
    Hampshire (South Coast of England)
    I suspect the reach for the ball mid-flight grabbed everyone's attention. Our group on the sideline were well placed to see the approach within 5, with contact. On-field umpires, benches, and other coaching groups were further away and at worse angles.

    As I saw it, the red attacker certainly felt the contact, and seemed, like me, surprised that no one else was concerned. His admirable self-control was perhaps because, like me, he began to doubt whether what happened did actually happen. But we were there: he did feel it; I did see it; he was already there; I was already looking.

    No video, I'm afraid.
     
  4. Ravennghorde

    Ravennghorde FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2013
    Messages:
    2,735
    Likes Received:
    372
    Location:
    Southern England
    So red should have backed off and left it to white? Red didn't complain because he was in the wrong?
     
  5. Diligent

    Diligent FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2007
    Messages:
    4,093
    Likes Received:
    868
    Location:
    Hampshire (South Coast of England)
    No. Red was standing ready to receive. White steamed in from a distance, poked stick past red's face, elbowed red in chest, then stood all innocent waiting for the ball. Nice play if you can get away with it.

    The problem is that red and I seemed to be the only ones to see(/feel) the approach, the stick inches past face, the elbow in chest.
    Everyone else (it seems) was watching the ball (edit: attention captured by the mid-flight almost-got-it), and didn't look until white was (all innocent) stood there in front of red. He got away with it.
     
    #5 Diligent, Feb 20, 2017
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2017
  6. Folmer

    Folmer FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    2,383
    Likes Received:
    534
    Good point for the pre-match chat. Agree that one umpire watches the release and flight path for danger, the other instantly switches to landing zone.
     
    mm289 likes this.
  7. VincentOhio

    VincentOhio FHF Newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2016
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    6
    As amazing a situation to see, and seeing all the action in real time would certainly prove useful..I have one question to ask, being just 4 years into hi-level hockey... Wouldn't the lift into red/white, and the be enough to consider it dangerous and the FHD be valid override all that occured after said lift?

    Aerials are becoming much more common in Ohio/US hockey so I appreciate the guidance.
     
  8. Nij

    Nij FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    May 22, 2012
    Messages:
    1,599
    Likes Received:
    551
    If one player is standing ready, in clear space and the ball is clearly going to them, there is no danger created by the aerial ball.

    The only offences in the situation are the opponent moving into the clear initial receiver and physically interfering with then or their equipment.

    The former should be an advantage or penalty favouring the initial receiver, if not also a card for the deliberate breakdown of play. The latter should be at least a YC - and if "elbowed in [the] chest" is meant literally, there's a very strong argument for RC instead.
     
  9. Stuart Burnside

    Stuart Burnside FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2014
    Messages:
    1,270
    Likes Received:
    869
    Is the bounce an aerial?
     
  10. G

    G FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    1,676
    Likes Received:
    182
    Location:
    Nottingham, UK
    We're coached, after the bounce treat solely on danger...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  11. Stuart Burnside

    Stuart Burnside FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2014
    Messages:
    1,270
    Likes Received:
    869
    Makes sense. So maybe this tale is more about the difficulty of watching for off the ball incidents. That perhaps gets worse when you've got a ball in the air to look at, but it's still an issue with ball on the deck.
     
  12. Diligent

    Diligent FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2007
    Messages:
    4,093
    Likes Received:
    868
    Location:
    Hampshire (South Coast of England)
    For the OP scenario, the bounce arrived just below shoulder level, so yes, it's fair to treat that as again an aerial.

    For those who say not, there is still the problem of the dangerous/physical play by white defender - seen if you look early - which is card and PC (in that order as I saw it!). For those who looked late and didn't see it, play continues.

    The umpires gave FHD, which suggests that they decided the bounce was an aerial to an unclear receiver.
     
  13. Stuart Burnside

    Stuart Burnside FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2014
    Messages:
    1,270
    Likes Received:
    869
    The latter was my focus, but isn't necessarily specific to the aerial, that was my point.
     
  14. mm289

    mm289 FHF Newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2015
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    8
    @Diligent, Ignoring whether you were right/wrong and how many people saw the incident I think the issue f when you look at the landing zone is valid and interesting.

    My interpretation is as soon as the ball is up I am transitioning to look at the LZ, and often will have tried to pre scan this area when i suspect and ariel is going to be launched with the intent of making an early blow if I see danger in the LZ.

    Applying this approach kinda caught me out a few weeks back when I checked the LZ to see it was occupied by 2 players (attack & defence) and it was. I flicked back to the ball flight to check my trajectory and blew for danger. At the point I blew the attacker had cleverly and quickly run back 3-4m from the defender leaving him in free space and proceed to politely ask why I had blown. I sold the decision OK on the basis it was a congested LZ when the ball was in flight, but it did make me think...

    So a slightly different scenario to yours but the same point I think, you almost need eyes in 3places at once especially in a fast moving game.

    BTW I like @Folmer point about the pre match chat.

    Cheers,

    MM
     
  15. johnreiss

    johnreiss FHF Top Player

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2006
    Messages:
    702
    Likes Received:
    31
    Location:
    teesside
    iin my view once an aerial has landed it's no longer aerial and should not be judged on aerial rules but other relevant rules. White's attempt yo play the ball near red's face is dangerous. white's physical contact is also against the rules. The action was delberate,. and inside the 23 depends Therefore.PC. Whether its a card as well depends on other factors such as what has happened b4 this incident. If its the first bad incident no card. If its the 2nd or 3rd its yellow. If it's the 23 its red
     
  16. redumpire

    redumpire FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,399
    Likes Received:
    2,567
    It's only ever a red card if it's the repetition of the offence by the same player who has previously had a yellow card for this offence. In no circumstances would I recommend a red card for a first instance of this sort of offence, unless the player has deliberately hit someone and that's not what the OP says...
     
  17. SPetitt

    SPetitt FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2013
    Messages:
    1,365
    Likes Received:
    334
    Location:
    Gloucestershire, Buckinghamshire & Costa del Sol
    As someone once told me on Facebook "Without pictures, it didn't happen!" :p

    But seriously, what it says to me is that if all those umpires missed it and only @Diligent saw it as he describes, it just reinforces my long-held opinion that the rules and interpretations covering 'falling raised balls' are too complicated for the average Joe (or Jill) to umpire consistently (or that the guidelines are not sufficiently clear e.g. is a bouncing ball to be treated as a FRB?)

    Of course, every honest umpire also knows that there have been occasions when (s)he has been 100% sure of what (s)he's seen, only to discover (e.g. from video) that their eyes have deceived them :rolleyes: I'm not suggesting that @Diligent was mistaken in this case, but I'd guess just about every umpire knows that it can happen.
     
    #17 SPetitt, Mar 19, 2017
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2017
  18. Diligent

    Diligent FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2007
    Messages:
    4,093
    Likes Received:
    868
    Location:
    Hampshire (South Coast of England)
    Not at all, Sal. The rule is fairly simple. It's the situation that's complicated because of so many moving parts in different places: ball in flight and maybe a bounce, players reaching mid-flight, attackers and defenders positioning to take the ball or be ready for mis-traps.

    The moral is the importance of discipline and habit-building to look early to the landing area, resisting the urge to watch in-flight events.

    Umpires often agree that the umpire in whose area the ball goes up watches that's safe, and the other umpire watches the landing. We should perhaps further agree that the 'up' umpire also follows the flight to deal with in-flight deflections (for danger or competition for the ball), so all of that can be safely ignored by the 'down' umpire, who will then focus immediately and exclusively on actions around the landing.
     
  19. SPetitt

    SPetitt FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2013
    Messages:
    1,365
    Likes Received:
    334
    Location:
    Gloucestershire, Buckinghamshire & Costa del Sol
    No, IMO too complicated for pretty much all but the pros. It just leads to inconsistency.

    And the change from penalising the lifter where it's lifted means that defenders can simply use it for defensive clearances, safe in the knowledge that they'll gain say 40m of space, even if they relinquish possession.
    Then there's the "Give Him Five!" myth.... and so on...it's a dog's breakfast.
     
    #19 SPetitt, Mar 20, 2017
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2017

Share This Page