Dangerous shot on goal

Discussion in 'Outdoor Umpiring Questions' started by Gambit, Mar 7, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Gambit

    Gambit FHF Starter

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    1
    I had this debate with a fellow umpire and a couple of other players the other day.

    Is there a dangerous shot on goal and if yes then you would you consider dangerous?

    Moderator's note: FHF consensus may be seen at Reply #3 below.

    All replies are welcome. Edit 31-Oct-2011: Thread locked and made sticky (as per Reply #5) no replies possible at present.

    Edit 3/11/11: This thread has now been edited to remove any remarks that could have been interpreted as comments on specific individuals and any references to the content of other hockey discussion boards. Red.
     
  2. Goalie64

    Goalie64 FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    5,591
    Likes Received:
    258
    Of course a shot on goal can be dangerous.
    Any cry from a player "but it was a shot on goal" should be ignored.

    I'm guessing you missed out the word "what" so the second part of your post should read "what would you consider dangerous"

    Rule 9.8 :
    Players must not play the ball dangerously or in a way which leads to dangerous play.
    A ball is considered dangerous when it causes legitimate evasive action by players.
    The penalty is awarded where the action causing the danger took place
    .

    It is your interpretation as an umpire as to what you consider to be dangerous.
     
  3. Diligent

    Diligent FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2007
    Messages:
    4,121
    Likes Received:
    881
    Location:
    Hampshire (South Coast of England)
    Every internet forum has had these debates, and the strong opinions have led to a deal of nastiness.

    There are two extreme positions:
    - if it is a shot, it cannot be dangerous (any danger is the defender's fault for being there);
    - the danger rules are being ignored, with too many dangerous shots allowed as goals, or injured defenders penalised with a PS.

    On the occasions when the flame wars have subsided enough to let reasonable contributors reach a consensus, that consensus has been:

    - it all depends on the shot, the speed and distances involved, the skill-level of defenders and attacker, the state of play, the importance of the competition, and many other factors known only to those who were there...
    - at the highest levels of hockey, very little is judged as dangerous, on the assumption that defenders have the skill to take on almost any shot
    - ... but umpires might still follow the guidance to Rules 9.9 and 13.3L, that a shot striking someone within 5 metres above the knee, can be considered dangerous
    - at beginning and social levels of hockey, inexperienced players must not be left feeling unsafe, and wild shots should be penalised to encourage attackers to care for safety
    - ... so umpires can reasonably extend the 'within 5' to 7, 10, or even 14, and sometimes rule it 'dangerous' even if the ball misses everyone
    - at the majority of hockey in-between, it is back to the umpire's judgement, based on experience, what they've read on the Internet, and discussions in the bar
    - ... so after a game with such a decision, you'll have this debate with a fellow umpire and a couple of other players

    Mod. edit 3/11/11: redundant smiley code from old board (":boring:") removed
     
    reshyam, theYoungster, Ratzs and 6 others like this.
  4. dodgeyumpires

    dodgeyumpires FHF Regular Player

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Messages:
    521
    Likes Received:
    1
    Wow... so why the hell were all those insults flown around??? All that needed to be said was that...


    Summed up perfectly! :yes:
     
  5. Moody_Git

    Moody_Git FHF Regular Player

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Messages:
    657
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Chez les grenouilles
    This should be etched in stone and stickied at the top of the forum!
     
  6. redumpire

    redumpire FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,427
    Likes Received:
    2,593
    Yep, great post Diligent.
     
    reshyam likes this.
  7. m0rph3us

    m0rph3us FHF Regular Player

    Joined:
    May 24, 2010
    Messages:
    181
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    New Zealand
    I agree, a concise and fair summary Diligent!
     
  8. Kersim

    Kersim FHF Starter

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    57
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    NSW Australia
    Great Reply Dilligent - Clear and concise...!!

    Each hockey season I do a fortnightly or monthly email-out to all my association umpires with tips and tricks of the trade. If you don't mind and with your permission, can I use your post as one of my "mail outs?"

    Cheers
    kersim
     
    reshyam likes this.
  9. nerd_is_the_word

    nerd_is_the_word FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2006
    Messages:
    2,220
    Likes Received:
    87
    Location:
    Queensland, AUS
    Yes but Diligent we know that no matter how perfectly you sum up the interpretation on this, there will always be some people with different views.
     
    reshyam likes this.
  10. deegum

    deegum FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    2,370
    Likes Received:
    33
    I think Diligent's post is perfectly in line with the rules.
     
  11. Diligent

    Diligent FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2007
    Messages:
    4,121
    Likes Received:
    881
    Location:
    Hampshire (South Coast of England)
    Thanks everyone. I simply posted the essence of what you have all written.

    If I may pick one, the post I appreciate most is Deegum's. We have had our differences, and it's good to have his agreement.
     
  12. Diligent

    Diligent FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2007
    Messages:
    4,121
    Likes Received:
    881
    Location:
    Hampshire (South Coast of England)
    These posts were made to a Sin Bin discussion, with evidence from the Olympics that truly dangerous shots are penalised, and that none of the serious injuries happened to a defender on the line.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page