FIH publishes Rulebook for 2013

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

  1. Cookie

    Cookie FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2010
    Messages:
    456
    Likes Received:
    139
    Yes - because technically the ball can be travelling goalwards whilst outside the circle. So if a player threw an aerial from centre pitch towards the circle your wording would allow the defender to cut it out, whilst outside the circel but with his stick above shoulder height. I don't think that is what you are suggesting but the rule as you write it would permit that.
     
  2. harvi

    harvi FHF Starter

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2012
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    south australia
    Ballingdon said
    " I know it is aimed at the FIH community only"
    Every single association that affilliates with a higher association that is affiliated with the FIH is part of the community.I think/hope that the FIH has some awareness of the multitude of players who look to them for guidance.
    I think the use of the word foul has become associated with evil,intentional,just plain stupid things players do.Its an old word that probably has no place in world that(reluctantly) we find ourselves in now.
    The preventing of the probable scoring of a goal has come to be a major foul because a goal can have such a large effect on the course of the game.If 40 goals a game were scored ,by each side,it would become less problematic.
     
  3. redumpire

    redumpire FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,581
    Likes Received:
    2,716
    I'm not sure why the idea that the umpire managers briefing is only for FIH level umpires persists. On the page on the FIH website where the briefing is hosted it quite plainly says:
     
  4. Ballingdon

    Ballingdon FHF Top Player

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2007
    Messages:
    342
    Likes Received:
    49
    Location:
    London
    Nij, (actually they are the same penalty - I think you mean grade of offence for same penalty)
    currently we rarely see a PS for breaking at a PC, and those who give it probably know what they're doing. The other existing conditions, a PS is fine. A PS is awarded after the attack have played/attempted to play the ball inside the D and something has happened. Fair enough , if defence prevent the probable scoring of goal or hack away the attacker's stick. But now, the attack get a PS because old Fred / young Sarah got hit by a speculative hit/cross whatever from outside the D, and as I said above, now instead of PC or perhaps nothing, the attack get a PS! It's stretching the range of the award of a PS too far. That's just an opinion :)
    Maybe the quality of PS taking will improve
     
  5. Ballingdon

    Ballingdon FHF Top Player

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2007
    Messages:
    342
    Likes Received:
    49
    Location:
    London
    Agreed - but I was just re-quoting what I've heard others say!
    FIH Umpire briefings are not disseminated to the bottom of the sport. When announcements are made it is "New Rules" are published. Ever see mention of the Umpire Briefing in the announcements? Even the current 2013 briefing is entitled "Umpire Manager's Briefing for Umpires 2013. You & I know what it means - but 90+%(?) of umpires never experience an Umpire Manager and may not bother to open the document, if they knew where to find it! We can do better at this simple stuff - we have all this new technology , must use it better.

    PS Just look at all the references to "FIH" and "International" on
    http://www.fih.ch/en/sport/umpiring
    Not immmediately going to catch the club umpire's attention
     
  6. redumpire

    redumpire FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,581
    Likes Received:
    2,716
    OK. So how do we ensure that it is more widely read? Dissemination is not the problem as it's freely available on a website and is, therefore, theoretically at least, already disseminated to every umpire in the world.
     
  7. harvi

    harvi FHF Starter

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2012
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    south australia
    Ballingdon

    The main difference between a horrible crash tackle and some poor fool getting his foot in the way of a shot at goal is that further action can be taken by umpires depending on how badly they think the tackle contravenes the rules and spirit of the game.
    The umpires briefing has always been available to the best of of the issueing authorities ability.ie.If you care,you will go looking,and find what you need
     
  8. Cookie

    Cookie FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2010
    Messages:
    456
    Likes Received:
    139
    In the UK at least they could do two things - place a clear link to the briefing on the England hockey umpiring site - if it is on there I couldn't find it (without searching I couldn't find a link to the rules either).

    Also - I think that the EHB emailed most clubs about the rule changes. Clubs can then decide how to pass that info on to their members and umpires. Why not do the same with the briefing and send it in the same email.

    I agree with Ballingdon - although the intro wording on the FIH website is as you describe it sits immediately under a heading titled "FIH International Umpire Information" which will lead many people not to read the wording below in the belief its not relevant to them.
     
  9. Justin

    Justin FHF Super Star

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,810
    Likes Received:
    43
    Location:
    Spain
    Yes, that was my implied point ;)
     
  10. Gilly

    Gilly FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2007
    Messages:
    643
    Likes Received:
    321
    Location:
    Peterborough

    That's the most spurious piece of logic I have seen on here for a while, Justin. I'm really not sure how anyone (Russian or otherwise) could make that deduction from...

    Where does it say anything about 'hits defender' or 'dangerous play'?
     
  11. redumpire

    redumpire FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,581
    Likes Received:
    2,716
    And I still can't credit the fact that one decision by one umpire - for which she may have been criticised by her UM at the time - is being held up as firm evidence of something that all FIH umpires regard as correct practice...
     
    Nij likes this.
  12. Diligent

    Diligent FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2007
    Messages:
    4,192
    Likes Received:
    927
    Location:
    Hampshire (South Coast of England)
    Meanwhile, back at the 2013 Rules as published...
    And another:
    Rule 1.7 (penalty spot) has not been updated in line with the re-worded Field Specification 1.3j on page 50

    Thanks to a friend for pointing that out - even more diligent than Diligent!
     
  13. Justin

    Justin FHF Super Star

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,810
    Likes Received:
    43
    Location:
    Spain
    Where did i say that the apparent relating of one poorly-worded rule to another was 'logical' ?..... I was, in fact pointing out the absurdity of it, but that there seems to be a mindset, among some, including (some of) those at the top, that a shot on goal cannot be dangerous, and that this could, possibly have come from the illogicality of expecting a defender to know whether a head-high shot would have gone into the goal(behind him), or just missed it.
    To allow one but penalise the other with a PC makes no sense at all.

    To be fair, I did see a couple of lifted shots penalised for danger at the OG, but as many which should have been that were not, most of which have been discussed at length.
     
  14. Justin

    Justin FHF Super Star

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,810
    Likes Received:
    43
    Location:
    Spain
    Yes, I hadn't spotted that ...would only require a few extra words to remove that anomaly.
     
  15. Diligent

    Diligent FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2007
    Messages:
    4,192
    Likes Received:
    927
    Location:
    Hampshire (South Coast of England)
    ... or a few less: "a probable goal", instead of "a ball which is traveling towards the goal" plus extra words to remove anomalies such as "that would score a goal".
     
  16. Nij

    Nij FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    May 22, 2012
    Messages:
    1,676
    Likes Received:
    632
    I think that's almost what I meant. Close enough anyway.
    But we're still applying the same rule: the defender's offence has stopped the probable scoring of a goal. Therefore it's a penalty stroke, same as if the attacker had hit from inside the circle, and deflected it off a defender's stick into a defender's body.
    As Harvi said, one goal can change the game, so something that prevents a goal is a major 'foul' (I prefer the word 'offence').
     
  17. redumpire

    redumpire FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,581
    Likes Received:
    2,716
    I think your friend is over-diligent, Diligent!


    Rule 1.7 says:
    The Field Specification says:
    The lines are 75mm wide (0.075m) so the two are identical, just expressed slightly differently...
    (Thanks to Gilly for pointing this out!)
     
  18. Diligent

    Diligent FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2007
    Messages:
    4,192
    Likes Received:
    927
    Location:
    Hampshire (South Coast of England)
    Hey, don't shoot the messenger. To quote my correspondent:
     
  19. redumpire

    redumpire FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,581
    Likes Received:
    2,716
    I didn't shoot nobody... I merely suggested that your friend was over-diligent!
     
  20. Diligent

    Diligent FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2007
    Messages:
    4,192
    Likes Received:
    927
    Location:
    Hampshire (South Coast of England)
    Right! Here's why it is really, really important!

    A goal is scored when the ball passes completely over the goal-line, so the goal/no-goal line is the outside edge of the back line. However rule books have always specified a penalty spot centred on 7yards/6.4metres from the inside edge of the line, assuming the line to be 3inches/75mm wide. Such stacking of tolerances is poor engineering practice (design and construction of artificial pitches is a branch of civil engineering), and the simple change to the wording of Field Specification 1.3j is long overdue. And, while it is arguable that Rule 1.7 is merely to inform players/umpires and so precision is unnecessary, it would have been tidier to use the same wording (as all previous rule books have done).

    OK, maybe not that important :oops:
     

Share This Page