Free Hit 5 meters - Stroke or PC?

Discussion in 'PS and Goalkeeping' started by Bulsara, Sep 24, 2008.

  1. Bulsara

    Bulsara FHF Regular Player

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Messages:
    330
    Likes Received:
    15
    I have had a quick look on the search engine and can't find this exact question but apologies if it has been discussed before.

    I had an incident on Saturday where there was a free hit awarded on the edge of the circle after a mistake by the defending team on a hit out. Due to the situation the attacking team had a 3 on 1 (plus goalkeeper) advantage and took a quick free hit from the correct spot, the defender was about three metre away and stretched (in other words a deliberate motion) to stop the ball reaching the attackers and prevent a definite 2 on 1 situation with the goalkeeper. All the latter part of the incident happened in the circle.

    Now the question is, in this situation would you award a Penalty Stroke or a Penalty Corner? This polarised views after the match with both teams split about 50/50 over what the decision should be.

    What would you give and almost as important how would you rationalise your decision to the team who were not happy with what you gave?
     
  2. Gilly

    Gilly FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2007
    Messages:
    643
    Likes Received:
    321
    Location:
    Peterborough
    For me it would have to be a stroke under 12.4a or 12.4b - both apply.

    The action is intentional, an offence, depriving the attack of possession, in a probable goal scoring scenario.

    And I would go for a 10 minute yellow for being a cheating bu99er!

    What counterargument could the defence possibly offer?
     
  3. Snoody

    Snoody FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2007
    Messages:
    3,898
    Likes Received:
    107
    I'm with Gilly on that one. PS and yellow.
     
  4. mspice61

    mspice61 FHF Regular Player

    Joined:
    May 17, 2008
    Messages:
    232
    Likes Received:
    0
    yup i agree... in the circle, deliberate prevention of a goal scoring opportunity. flick seems the correct option.
     
  5. Bulsara

    Bulsara FHF Regular Player

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Messages:
    330
    Likes Received:
    15
    Hmmm, all in agreement but not what I did. I had a 'blonde' moment (apologies to all the blondes out there) and was too busy thinking about what the decision should be and awarded a Short corner but forgot to award the card. Interesting thing is that I got away with it and everyone was relatively happy until after the game, not sure what that says about what the players expect from my standard of umpiring or I just sold it well.

    Why, did I only give a short corner? My thinking at the time was, did it deny possession - in all likliehood yes it did but it was not certain as the attacking player may not have trapped the ball correctly, may have swung and missed etc. Was it a certain goal - it was a likely goal but not certain as they still had the goalkeeper to beat and passes can go astray etc etc. That was my thinking at the time.

    On reflection I think I was wrong and it should have been a stroke but it was interesting to note that even team mates were split on the decision.
     
  6. alex.

    alex. FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,138
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you give a card then that implies it was deliberate, and would have had to be a PS, but as you gave a PC, I think no card is in line with the decision.

    I do, however, agree that it should have been a PS - you say it did not necessarily (although probably did) deny possession, but it only has to deny the opportunity to play the ball in order to be a PS, and it sounds like the attacker would definitely have had the opportunity in this scenario.
     
  7. Folmer

    Folmer FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    2,442
    Likes Received:
    559
    Tricky one. As a lot of the real ;) umps here would say: "You'd have to see the incident" But here's my ten cents.
    First off: did the defender try to get enough distance or was he static? If he was moving away then a PC should suffice, any defender would reach for that ball, especially in that situation.
    Is he was static then I'd give a PS. Don't know about the card, the stroke is probably enough of a penalty to get the message through.
     
  8. Hockeyjon

    Hockeyjon FHF Regular Player

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    0
    Balsara
    I understand why you gave the PC I think. The original foul was outside the circle which then developed into the incident inside the circle. Your rational probably 'froze' there. But yes is should have been a PS & card.
    Alex I would have given a card regardless of whether the incident was inside or outside the circle as it was a deliberate act by the defender. Do you agree?
    The colour of the card wouldve been determined by what stage/ state of the game when the incident occured.
     
  9. alex.

    alex. FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,138
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hockeyjon - I do agree that a card should be given because it was deliberate. But, because in the OP a PC was given rather than a PS, it was better not to give a card, because the players would be able to argue, legitimately, that if the card is for a deliberate foul (which it seems obviously denied possession of the opportunity to play the ball), then they should have had a PS as well! Do you see my reasoning?
     
  10. Bulsara

    Bulsara FHF Regular Player

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Messages:
    330
    Likes Received:
    15
    Alex, I would have had no hesitation in giving a yellow card and a PC because of the rationale I set out, just because I give a yellow card in the circle does not always follow that it is a stroke (cummulative fouls being the most obvious example) but in this case I got so caught up in the decision I forgot to give the card.

    Jon, In all respects I got the decision wrong and I have learnt from that and i need to stop myself thinking so much :yes:
     
  11. nerd_is_the_word

    nerd_is_the_word FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2006
    Messages:
    2,224
    Likes Received:
    90
    Location:
    Queensland, AUS
    An interesting one indeed. Im with Folmer here, if the defender was trying to back away I would probably simply give a PC and be done with it, if they weren't even trying to get back the distance then a PS and a card.

    I dont think you can justify 12.4a though. I wouldn't call it a probable goal, everybody here has seen way too many cases here where a two on one has been stuffed by the attack to call it a probable goal. To me a probable goal is one where the defence would have played no further part and the ball was either going in the net, or going to an attacker with an open net
     
  12. Hockeyjon

    Hockeyjon FHF Regular Player

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think Rule 12.4 b does allow you to give a PS for such an offence. Ineptitude by players after the foul is not of the umpires concern as regards applying the rule, UNLESS he decides to play an advantage.
    I agree that a defender who has not been given the oppertunity to retreat should not be penalised, the FH should be retaken. However a defender who is retreating and decides to 'play' the ball (moving stick or feet etc in such a way as to influence the direction or speed of a 'live' ball) has to be regarded as a deliberate act.
    In my experience defending players don't do such things by accident!! They know perfectly well if the don't do something to stop the play developing an attacker is likley to have an oppertunity to shoot at goal.
     
  13. deegum

    deegum FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    2,370
    Likes Received:
    33
    Sorry folks the attack does not have the absolute right to take the FH with a defender within 5m.

    It seems that if the defender is influencing play, as he clearly was, the fh can't be taken

    As soon as the ball is played, the restrictions on the defence are ended.

    The attack chose to take the hit quickly.
    They chose to put it close to the defender.
    They can't expect the defender to meekly stand there and let it past.

    If you'd like to disagree with this assessment, - and I can't imagine anyone would..... :eek: ;)
    then explain the meaning of the extract from the rules above. . (edit: whoops! Please explain....etc forgot my manners :) )

    Bulsara may like to add information. - for instance, was the defender not attempting to leave the 5m?- or had he not had time to react to the umpire's signal- which would bring other rules into play.
    My opinon: Play on, retake, or FHD for breach of the quoted clause.
    For me, probably retake.- I'd have to be there.
     
  14. Bulsara

    Bulsara FHF Regular Player

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Messages:
    330
    Likes Received:
    15
    Interesting new take Deegum. I am not sure in the situation I would ever have given a retake or a FHD because whilst the defender was retreatig he did make a deliberate attempt to stop the ball going to an attacker. If he is within the 5 metres then he should just let the ball pass him as the consequences of his actions should be obvious, even if I didn't fully punish them.

    Further information the defender was trying to retreat but certainly knew he was within the 5 metres and made a deliberate play at the ball. I should also add that the defender involved has 20+ caps for his country and this was in the top league in Scotland therefore ignorance is not an excuse.

    Jon, should an umpire not think of all the possibilities likely to arise before they make a decision over a stroke and therefore in this case a short corner could be argued. I am not saying that is right as in hindsight I would have given a stroke and a yellow card, just a general comment.
     
  15. Hockeyjon

    Hockeyjon FHF Regular Player

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    0
    Deegum
    Or sport is now more than ever based on the athleticism of the players. Ball speed is a key component of coaches asking players to get the ball into an area to exploit.
    The defender is not allowed to play the ball with his stick unless he is 5 meters from a FH. Therefore by allowing him to do so should he be able to is contrary to that rule.

    12.3 e opponents must be at least 5 metres from the ball.
    If a player is standing within 5 metres of the ball but not influencing play, the free hit need not be delayed.

    I think the descriptor under rule 13.2 e does allow the attacking team to take quick free hits.
    If you look beyond this and use your rational, defenders will deliberatly slow down when retreating and make sure they are positioning themselves during thre retreat to cover the channels attacking players are moving toward, why because they know if the attacker playes the ball and they are less than 5 meters from the ball the attackers wont/cant play because defeners can play the ball. This slows the game down and stops goal oppertunities, which is a big advantage to defenders.
    I wonder what players & coaches would think of this?
    Or have I misunderstood your post?
     
  16. Gilly

    Gilly FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2007
    Messages:
    643
    Likes Received:
    321
    Location:
    Peterborough
    I think we have been this route before Deegum (where is Keely when you need her) and the broad consensus was that the defender is effectively 'out of the game until they have retreated 5m from the hit' not 'out of the game until the hit is taken'.

    And despite the clever play on words, for me, any player who intends to be the next one to play the ball is definitely influencing play. To paraphrase the late-great Bill Shankley "if he's not influencing play why is he wearing a red shirt?"

    Furthermore, I agree with Hockeyjon - to allow players to become active as soon as the hit is taken, even though they are within 5m, pratically removes the requirement altogether as the only penalty is a retake.

    Defenders would spoil any quick free hit with impunity - that way anarchy lies!
     
  17. keely

    keely FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2006
    Messages:
    10,403
    Likes Received:
    778
    Location:
    Calgary, Canada
    I'm just waking up because it's only 8:12 in the morning where I am! I haven't even had my oatmeal yet.

    Hockeyjon's assessment of deegum's argument is correct in the spirit of the game as the rest of us understand it. The defender must allow the ball to pass.

    Now back to the decision - it's a case of 12.4(b), "an intentional offence in the circle by a defender against an opponent who has possession of the ball or an opportunity to play the ball" so yes, a PS. Alex, I think Bulsara's instinctive reaction was not that it was an unintentional foul inside the circle (for which a card should not be given), but an intentional foul outside the circle, for which a PC and a (yellow) card should have been given.

    Good learning opportunity though, thanks for sharing. :)
     
  18. deegum

    deegum FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    2,370
    Likes Received:
    33
    Thanks for the clarification Bulsara.

    Gilly If the defender is delaying there are options available to the umpire..up 10- PC card etc That stops repeats.

    So the defender was complying with the rules as best he could

    refer rule : ‘Close to’ means within playing distance of where the offence occurred and with no significant advantage gained.

    So Bulsara, Was the ball " within playing distance" ?

    Was it so close to the " proper" spot that no significant advantage- ie as a result of any inaccuracy in placement and earlier take did not cause the defender to be with in 5m ?

    I'm not criticizing Bulsara, merely pointing out the restrictions in the taking of the free.

    The free hit is a HIT, not a hit followed by a period where the defence can not play it.

    Once the hit is taken- ie ball contacted, FH is over, ball is in open play for the defence.
    So the defender can attempt to play

    There is no system like say in rugby where the player has to go back to an " onside" position before rejoining play.



    I'm not stirring here.

    If you -not just Bulsara, any of you- disagree with me, could you please explain the meaning/ significance of the phrase/ clause: "but not influencing play, "

    It must mean something :eek:

    I could quote older guidance which very strongly supports my view.

    The rewritten guidance is I believe in line with the older guidance.

    ie if the defence is complying with the requirement to ' get 5" the attack must wait.
    no extra advantage of " outpacing" the defence.
     
  19. deegum

    deegum FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    2,370
    Likes Received:
    33
    Gee its hard to get the idea across .
    I wish I was a lawyer or other species of persuader. :(

    just in case.... I'm not being nasty to Bulsara or anyone else
     
  20. justin-old

    justin-old FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2006
    Messages:
    3,101
    Likes Received:
    1
    And I think it's reasonable to assume the 'everyone 5m' rule was to improve safety....which apparently didn't apply in this case, so I'd go along with allowing a quick SAFE FH to be taken and would expect a defender too slow to retreat not to 'reach out' ....if the ball had been played 'through him' and had hit feet or sticks, it would have been different.
    Reaching-out is a clear attempt to break-down the FH and I'd give a PS and a card.

    What would you have given if it had hit the foot of a defender within 5m? (Apparently Retreating/not retreating?)
     

Share This Page