Ball hit body - play advantage?

Discussion in 'Outdoor Umpiring Questions' started by Wiggles369, May 19, 2017.

  1. Mac

    Mac FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Messages:
    550
    Likes Received:
    260
    Stick/s:
    Ritual Velocity; Adidas HS1 XXtreme; Adidas TT10
    And, in the absence of access to the Rules, FHF clears that up for me. Thank you.

    I shall disregard any further replies to my earlier, brief post as any reply after the first three in the Umpiring Corner will not add anything but only worsen understanding and cause angst. Please do not reply to my earlier post, anyone. ;)
     
  2. redumpire

    redumpire FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,399
    Likes Received:
    2,567
    @Krebsy, @Bondy, we are, as usual, in violent agreement! I was simply pointing out that nowhere in the rules does it state explicitly what @Mac claimed. Everyone's happy here: let's move on!
     
    Bondy likes this.
  3. careeman

    careeman FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2013
    Messages:
    526
    Likes Received:
    402
    The following rule would seem to contradict that. However @Bondy 's description of why this is problematic should be applied to why in practice and in relation to the OP its unlikely that play on will be a legitimate option in most cases.

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

    It 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.

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

    Gingerbread FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,527
    Likes Received:
    437
    I think you'd only really play advantage off the rare occasions where something was completely unaffected e.g. shot on target into an open goal, defender trying to save deflects the ball up into the body of an attacker on the back post and it goes in anyway. That's why I went with the "too much advantage" though "you gained an advantage from the foul" works fine as others above have said
     
  5. SPetitt

    SPetitt FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2013
    Messages:
    1,365
    Likes Received:
    334
    Location:
    Gloucestershire, Buckinghamshire & Costa del Sol
    In the case you quoted you could also apply 'No DIS advantage!' ... it was going in anyway, and the 'offence' had no effect on subsequent events (apart from whinges from the defence ). That is what the rules say, too ;)
    I once saw a 4th XI attacker ... 'sportingly' and vociferously ... insisting that the ball had gone in after hitting his foot, about 6 inches from the line, the umpire having awarded the goal :rolleyes: The umpire asked "Do you really want me to disallow this goal?" ...( I think his team-mates were stuffing a sock in his mouth at that point :p )
     
  6. The chief

    The chief FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2013
    Messages:
    583
    Likes Received:
    330
    I think we've entered what I like to call an umpire death spiral.
     
  7. SPetitt

    SPetitt FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2013
    Messages:
    1,365
    Likes Received:
    334
    Location:
    Gloucestershire, Buckinghamshire & Costa del Sol
    You appear to have less endurance than some of us:p
     
    Bondy and Ravennghorde like this.
  8. Pippinn

    Pippinn FHF Starter

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2017
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    4
    Slightly off topic, but what if there were more players (and perhaps a prone keeper) and your view of who lifted the ball into the attacker was obstructed? Give benefit of the doubt to the defense or the attack?
    My instinct says I've only seen who committed the second foul I should penalise what I've seen.

    Sent from my Vodafone Smart ultra 6 using Tapatalk
     
  9. nerd_is_the_word

    nerd_is_the_word FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2006
    Messages:
    2,220
    Likes Received:
    85
    Location:
    Queensland, AUS
    @Pippinn My gut instinct is based on two basic things (that you should be able to discern even if you haven't seen how it was lifted)
    • Was the ball headed towards the goal or out of the D?
    • Was the ball travelling fast (as if being hit directly) or bobbling/looping (as if it has come of somebodies stick on the way past)?
    My decision then would be based on who I "guess" had last touched the ball:
    • Towards goal and fast - probably an attacker shooting
    • Towards goal and bobbling - probably a defenders fluffed save
    • Away from goal and fast - probably a defender clearing
    • Away from goal and bobbling - probably an attacks fluffed stop

    I think in this case it would be harsh to penalise the person hit, as we KNOW that a danger offense has occurred first, we just aren't sure who by. Depending on the level I was umpiring I would think that if my assumptions had been completely incorrect then the responsible party might potentially own up and let me correct my mistake anyway.
     
  10. Diligent

    Diligent FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2007
    Messages:
    4,093
    Likes Received:
    868
    Location:
    Hampshire (South Coast of England)
    Nothing wrong with a change of topic @Pippinn, when it gets mired into a 'danger' debate. But there's a big factor you and @nerd_is_the_word seem to forget - like many umpires under pressure: isn't there someone else on the pitch who might help? Another umpire, maybe? Oh yes,... forgot about her!

    Once you know you've missed something in your circle, look across for help. They should have been watching, seen what happened, and be ready to signal. If you don't get an immediate signal (or word in the earpiece), then blow your whistle anyway, signal to stop play/time, and discuss.

    Whatever happens, do not guess. If neither of you saw the first one, you must simply go with the one you did see ("That's the way we saw it"), and afterwards think about your patterns of movement and positioning. An honest mistake doesn't burn much trust, but they'll know if you guess, and that puts a big dent in the umpiring (for both of you).
     
    Krebsy likes this.
  11. nerd_is_the_word

    nerd_is_the_word FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2006
    Messages:
    2,220
    Likes Received:
    85
    Location:
    Queensland, AUS
    Sorry I did not mention to check if your other umpire can clarify what happened for you before you go to the steps I said.

    But diligent I dont think that the idea of "we didn't see it" applies, as in this case you did see the offence, you just didn't see clearly who committed it. If I was defending, and had been hit in the chest, and the umpire told me that they didn't see the lift but did see it hit me, I would be livid that the umpire had clearly seen a dangerous ball (he has seen it hit me in the chest) but will then be penalising me for being hit in the chest.

    Maybe these posts need a new thread (moderators?) but to give another example, if a defender passes the ball towards two players, neither player has their stick anywhere near it, but the ball clearly bounces off somebodies (unsure who) foot and goes over the backline, the absolute worst call you could make would be to say "I didn't see who kicked it so long corner"
     
  12. Gingerbread

    Gingerbread FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,527
    Likes Received:
    437
    Why is that decision the worst vs say "I didn't see who kicked it so FHD"? Either scenario relies on a guess and either is going to annoy the player who knows what happened. I agree essentially admitting you guessed is bad but surely a guess either way is equally bad?
     
  13. Krebsy

    Krebsy FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2014
    Messages:
    1,990
    Likes Received:
    774
    Location:
    Bristol
    You cannot guess. It is quite simple.
    To say you should is wrong. If you did not see the ball being raised then you cannot say who raised it.
    Sometimes things happen which we don't see, a good umpire acknowledges that and simply calls what they do see.
     
  14. nerd_is_the_word

    nerd_is_the_word FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2006
    Messages:
    2,220
    Likes Received:
    85
    Location:
    Queensland, AUS
    The problem with giving a long corner in that situation is that you are giving a decision that CANNOT be correct. You at least need to give a decision that is plausible.

    There is a big difference between actually guessing, and making informed decisions. If I dont see the ball hit a players foot, but the ball ends up stopped by "something" when near the players foot and there is no stick anywhere near it, I can be reasonably sure that it has hit the players foot.

    If the ball is raised, towards goal, in a path that clearly shows it didn't take a deflection, I can be reasonably sure that it was an attacker who lifted it.

    Just as a(nother) theoretical, what would you give if this was the first hit at a PC, and the other umpire hasn't seen whether it deflected or not?
     
  15. Gingerbread

    Gingerbread FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,527
    Likes Received:
    437
    You're talking about a situation where a ball touches a foot then goes over the back line where there is no clear advantage or disadvantage - thus a LC or FHD is perfectly fine. A PC or FHD if advantage is gained
     
  16. Krebsy

    Krebsy FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2014
    Messages:
    1,990
    Likes Received:
    774
    Location:
    Bristol
    Why? If you are only awarding a foul so that you don't look bad, you are awarding a foul for the wrong reason.
    You do not award a foul until you see a foul happen. If you do not see it, you cannot award it and you need to ride the storm of player's disapproval.
    If you want to play a betting game, go ahead, but don't


    If there was only one object which could have raised the ball, then you can logically say with 100% certainty that it hit that object. However if there are various body parts belonging to various players of different teams, you cannot say with certainty which body part raised the ball. Then you should not award a foul until you know which/whose body part it was.

    Not so certain if it is an accidental deflection. If it was a clearly pre-meditated action, then yes, you can say with more certainty that it was likely to be an attacker.

    If you do not see something, you cannot say it happened with 100% certainty and going on odds is a risky business.
    More respect is given to umpires who can put their hands up and say "sorry folks, I didn't see that one" than one who makes guesses and tries to brazen it out when it is obvious to all and sundry that you are guessing and lying to the players.
     
    Ravennghorde likes this.
  17. nerd_is_the_word

    nerd_is_the_word FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2006
    Messages:
    2,220
    Likes Received:
    85
    Location:
    Queensland, AUS
    But krebsy in that case you as an umpire would be saying 'sorry' nearly everytime the ball enters the D. Im not that concerned about saving face, but making a call that is fair.

    I can never say with 100% certainty unless i was to watch something back on video 3-4 times. Especially inside the D where it is fairly crowded and everything is happening quickly, most of my decisions are 70% at best.

    I genuinely cant believe that umpires would make calls that they know to be wrong, to save having to think for a few seconds about how they could make the right call.
     
  18. Ravennghorde

    Ravennghorde FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2013
    Messages:
    2,735
    Likes Received:
    372
    Location:
    Southern England
    But you have a colleague. Between you you should be more certain than 70% most of the time.

    Twice tonight my colleague indicated a PC in my D when I looked for support. I knew something had happened but not sure what, quick glance and clear answer.
     
  19. nerd_is_the_word

    nerd_is_the_word FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2006
    Messages:
    2,220
    Likes Received:
    85
    Location:
    Queensland, AUS
    We are talking about situations where your colleague is unsure as well.

    Obviously if you collegue gives you a clear answer then this whole debate is pointless.
     
  20. Krebsy

    Krebsy FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2014
    Messages:
    1,990
    Likes Received:
    774
    Location:
    Bristol
    That is simply untrue, between the two of you, you will get the vast majority of stuff just fine.

    I think we are using different numbers to agree but sound like we are arguing. My 100% is not literal and your 70% is an underestimation of your ability. I suspect they are actually the same thing.

    This is conflation of a few different things. Firstly, umpires would not make calls they know to be wrong. Hence why they would not just take a random guess.
    The second part of your sentence just doesn't apply. If they are not able to say with certainty what happened, thinking about it for longer won't add any knowledge to their recollection and will not achieve anything. They either did see it or didn't.

    I think we are overblowing the seriousness of this and in forum stylee examining a rare and passing occurrence as if it is a common and vitally important aspect of the game. As has been said, between the 2 umpires, there is little chance of anything being totally missed and requiring guesswork. When that does happen, you simply must just chalk that up to experience and not just guess at what to award. Honesty is the best policy, lying about your certainty or telling players that you are guessing will undermine your position much more than owning up to missing something.
     
    Ravennghorde likes this.

Share This Page