FIH publishes Rulebook for 2013

Discussion in '2013 Official FIH Rules Book' started by keely, Aug 31, 2012.

  1. Ballingdon

    Ballingdon FHF Top Player

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2007
    Messages:
    343
    Likes Received:
    51
    Location:
    London
    Ah, when the grim reaper deflects a PC shot into my head, I shall die a happy man , it was recognition enough that Keely wrote to FIH on this one!
    Ok. So grovelling over, how about we also encourage FIH to change the way that they review their final draft rules NEXT TIME, so that it reduces the chance of this stuff doesnt get out. In many walks of life, there are formal review processes where people check specifications, designs, rules etc etc for consistency, completeness, so that defects dont get through etc . Why dont they try out the idea, will save printing 10000's of incorrect Rule Books.
    (PS can run a course , for the small price of a day in Geneva! - sorry about the business plug)
     
  2. Ballingdon

    Ballingdon FHF Top Player

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2007
    Messages:
    343
    Likes Received:
    51
    Location:
    London
    Of course not - well, with the exception of a couple of coaches I know at higher level who are probably scrutinising the rules in the same way right now! But it's just business as usual dealing with them.
    KISS approach required

    I for one will be discussing the agreed line with partner to makie sure we have common ground and will tell captains and coaches if think fit.
     
  3. keely

    keely FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2006
    Messages:
    10,403
    Likes Received:
    778
    Location:
    Calgary, Canada
    They did try out the own goal rule for two years in the EHL. For whatever reason, the discrepancy between these 3 rules never came up, despite the best European players, coaches, umpires, umpire managers and technical officials being involved. I'm not sure what more they could have reasonably done as a trial period. As to the actual drafting of the rules themselves, I'm sure there are ways that the rules drafting process could be improved and with an incident like this, the FIH will be looking at exactly that.

    Congratulations for discovering the problem before anyone else did - it took me a couple of minutes of thinking after I read your post but once the shoe dropped I think I had a full-fledged panic attack!

    As I said before, I promise to report back with news as soon as I hear of it but I assure you this issue is being examined by the FIH as we speak.
     
  4. Cookie

    Cookie FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2010
    Messages:
    457
    Likes Received:
    139
    And if you are luck enough to have a couple of the regular contributors to FHF umpiring you can die even happier in the knowledge that you will have earned an FHD....:)
     
    Daniel Eshuis likes this.
  5. Duncan Clarke

    Duncan Clarke FHF Starter

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2012
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    8
    In addition to the above responses I agree that the definition of "shot at goal" should remain. Changing the wording to "directly preventing a goal" or similar is better for the stated reason but also to close another loophole that I feel already existed;

    What if a pass or cross made from within the circle were deflected up at goal. I do not believe this would be classed as a shot at goal, so the defender faces the same dilemma play the ball to face a ps and card, or let it go in.

    The suggested wording above, or equivalent, would also remove this ambiguity along with the new one.
     
    Nij likes this.
  6. Justin

    Justin FHF Super Star

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,810
    Likes Received:
    43
    Location:
    Spain
    Well, as possibly one of the 'regular contributors' mentioned, I'd have to point-out that FHD would not be correct, since it would've been a defender (or 'the grim reaper', who I'm assuming is not an 'attacker' ..... most hockey players I've encountered who were worthy of that title were hairy old full-backs ;) ), who caused the danger!
    I'd reluctantly have to give a PS:p
    (Fortunately I am not one of those Olympic umpires who appear to think that the correct re-start after an injury sustained following a foul by the injured person, is a FH to that person's team!!)
     
  7. harvi

    harvi FHF Starter

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2012
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    south australia
    Yes,keely,ballingdon you are correct.I got hung up on the instinctive response to this change which seemed so simple.Perhaps the wording in rule 8.1 should focus on ball direction within the cicle.ie a square pass deflects off a defender towards goal,instantly it becomes a shot at goal.It does seem that the fundemental requirement to win a game of hockey is to score more goals than the opposition.So,now,any hit,from anywhere on the field towards the goals could be classed as a shot at goal.This brings up a scary thought.Concievebly a defensive GK punts a half volley kick the length of the field,the other end keeper misjudges,deflects into the net...Goal.GK's on the scoresheet without taking penalty flicks!The sky is falling
     
  8. Nij

    Nij FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    May 22, 2012
    Messages:
    1,733
    Likes Received:
    656
    On a minor technical note, somebody at the FIH may also wish to check their spelling.

    The PDF here has at rule 8 mispelt 'Experimantal' (sic).

    EDIT: I also note that 13.8.i is missing all of its spacing between words.
     
    Daniel Eshuis likes this.
  9. Justin

    Justin FHF Super Star

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,810
    Likes Received:
    43
    Location:
    Spain
    To paraphrase one of my quiz partners, I'd rather they got the rules right, but mis-spelled them, than the other way around :)

    But I agree, in principle ..... frequent poor spelling in important documents degrades their credibility.
     
    alex.miles likes this.
  10. Nij

    Nij FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    May 22, 2012
    Messages:
    1,733
    Likes Received:
    656
    How about perhaps,
    Then there is no need to alter any other rule which is constructed around the definition of a shot at goal. And defenders may now act to prevent the scoring of a goal in every way that they currently are. And we don't have to worry about what lead up to it happening: all we need to know is whether a goal probably would have been scored if not for whatever happens next.

    This also has a secondary effect of clearing up exactly what "the probable scoring of a goal" is, by implication: anything that would most likely result in a goal being scored, if the ball was not subsequently prevented from entering the goal before leaving the circle.

    Three birds ambiguities with one stone comment?
     
  11. keely

    keely FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2006
    Messages:
    10,403
    Likes Received:
    778
    Location:
    Calgary, Canada
    Don't like it. Changing the definition provides confusion for the penalty corner rules.

    Modifying 9.7 is the cleanest solution.
     
  12. Diligent

    Diligent FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2007
    Messages:
    4,232
    Likes Received:
    958
    Location:
    Hampshire (South Coast of England)
    Seems to me the obvious change would be replacing "shot at" with "probable" in 9.7:
    "... defenders are permitted to use the stick to stop or deflect a probable goal at any height."
    A couple of similar changes needed to guidance "When saving a probable goal... attempting to stop or deflect the ball."

    To be more precise, they might want to extend the phrase to be completely in line with 12.4a (PS rule) in rule and/or guidance - "probable scoring of a" goal - but whatever... 'probable goal' seems to fix it.
     
    keely likes this.
  13. Justin

    Justin FHF Super Star

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,810
    Likes Received:
    43
    Location:
    Spain
    Current Rule

    9.7 Players must not play the ball with any part of the stick
    when the ball is above shoulder height except that
    defenders are permitted to use the stick to stop or deflect
    a shot at goal at any height.

    When saving a shot at goal, a defender must not
    be penalised if their stick is not motionless or is
    traveling towards the ball while attempting to stop
    or deflect the shot. Only if the ball is genuinely
    hit while above shoulder height and a goal is
    prevented should a penalty stroke be awarded.

    If a defender attempts to stop or deflect ball
    traveling towards the goal which will actually miss
    the goal, any use of the stick above the shoulder
    must be penalised by a penalty corner and not a
    penalty stroke.
    If dangerous play results after a legitimate stop or
    deflection, a penalty corner must be awarded.


    Possible amendment

    9.7 Players must not play the ball with any part of the stick
    when the ball is above shoulder height except that
    defenders are permitted to use the stick to stop or deflect
    a ball which is traveling towards the goal at any height.

    When playing a ball traveling towards the goal, a defender
    must not be penalised if their stick is not motionless or is
    traveling towards the ball while attempting to stop
    or deflect it. Only if the ball is genuinely
    hit while above shoulder height and a goal is
    prevented should a penalty stroke be awarded.

    If a defender attempts to stop or deflect a ball
    traveling towards the goal which will actually miss
    the goal, any use of the stick above the shoulder
    must be penalised by a penalty corner and not a
    penalty stroke.

    The above paragraph should be deleted, the condition is
    patently unfair and unnecessary. (Any attempt to play other high balls, by either team, is already an offence.)

    If dangerous play results after a legitimate stop or
    deflection, a penalty corner must be awarded.
    Can someone explain how a legitimate stop
    could result in dangerous play? If a stop or deflection results
    in dangerous play it cannot be legitimate (i.e. legal). What is
    meant is - if a stop or deflection of the ball made at above shoulder
    height causes danger to others a penalty corner must be awarded -
    but I cannot see a need to state that, it's self evident, and covered by other rules.

    What is meant to be said here already has been. Only if the ball is
    genuinely (intentionally) hit while above shoulder height and a goal is
    prevented should a penalty stroke be awarded. so it is unnecessary
    repetition.

    A deflection of the ball that endangers another player is very unlikely
    to have been deflected dangerously on purpose, so that action should
    result in a penalty corner anyway.


    We/they should not, IMO, get so caught up in trying to punish defenders for defending.
     
  14. Hacker

    Hacker FHF Legend

    Joined:
    May 18, 2007
    Messages:
    702
    Likes Received:
    131
    Location:
    Sheffield
    IIRC that fianl paragraph (If a defender....) was put in to make it clear that the outcome of stop wide of the goal was a PC not a PS; it was to stop over exuberant decisions!
     
  15. Ballingdon

    Ballingdon FHF Top Player

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2007
    Messages:
    343
    Likes Received:
    51
    Location:
    London
    Widening the debate slightly about the new Rules, and consistency..
    IMHO umpire briefings should be reviewed alongside the actual rules too
    The new 2012 FIH Umpire briefing ( I know it is aimed at the FIH community only) still states (as in other recent versions) that (p25)
    "the penalty stroke is a major decision for a major foul"
    I wonder if this is still true. A hard hit through into the D, deflected off a defender (stick or body) onto the same/another defender's body on the line is going to be a PS.
    Is this example a "major foul" ?
    What worries me is that in the above example is , the penalty is now on a par with an intentional tackle ('bad tackle') on an attacker in the circle with the ball (or opportunity to play the ball).

    In the transition to these new rules, we are going to have to sell these decisions to the players, coaches and spectators. Yes, they will learn eventually. Some of the more junior umpires will find it difficult (as they do now) to give a PS. In the above example, if there were no other players nearby , we would have given nothing before - now it's a PS! That's a harsh result for poor skill and a quite unjustified reward to the attack. But the rules are the same for all so we give it - and sell it.
     
  16. Kilmory

    Kilmory Administrator
    FHF Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Messages:
    5,117
    Likes Received:
    1,003
    Location:
    Wirral, UK


    But this would allow the defender to play the ball above shoulder height even if it hadn't been touched within the D.

    I agree with Keely that modifying 9.7 is the best solution.



    Agreed.
     
  17. Justin

    Justin FHF Super Star

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,810
    Likes Received:
    43
    Location:
    Spain
    Possibly, but the result of it has been to have umpires think the converse - that any shot that is on target that hits a defender must be a penalty stroke; only shots going wide of the goal are penalised with a penalty corner if the defender is in breach of Rule. This reasoning appears to have been been 'translated' in one step (eg by the Russian FIH ump) into "an on target shot at the goal cannot be dangerous play (because the FIH say a stroke is to be awarded)" But the FIH has said nothing of the sort.
     
  18. Nij

    Nij FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    May 22, 2012
    Messages:
    1,733
    Likes Received:
    656
    The "major penalty" part could refer just to PSs for deliberate offences inside the circle, not to absolutely all PSs. And then again, it could be argued either way that preventing the probable, if not the definite, scoring of a goal is a major foul, and should rightly be penalised with a PS.

    The PS is also already given for persistent breaking at PCs and for defenders' offences that prevent the probable scoring of a goal.
    Does this make them on par with an intentional tackle? No. The same way that we award PCs for crashing body contacts outside the circle as we do for the goalkeeper getting the ball stuck in their kicker. They are not the same penalty, even though, they are the same penalty.
    That doesn't make sense as written, I'm sure, but I'm trying to convey the idea that not all penalty strokes are the same, just as not all PCs and not all free hits are the same either.
     
  19. Justin

    Justin FHF Super Star

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,810
    Likes Received:
    43
    Location:
    Spain
    Would this be a problem? A ball traveling goalwards at above shoulder height, from a hit/flick/deflection outside the circle ???
     
  20. Kilmory

    Kilmory Administrator
    FHF Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Messages:
    5,117
    Likes Received:
    1,003
    Location:
    Wirral, UK
    Yes, they are not preventing a probable goal. Best to just get out of the way and not risk danger to themselves or others by attempting to play it (or a dreaded own goal). To be honest, shouldn't the whistle have already gone for probable danger anyway?
     

Share This Page