Free Hit 5 meters - Stroke or PC?

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

  1. deegum

    deegum FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    2,370
    Likes Received:
    33
    So, can someone explain to me the application of the phrase underlined:
    note I raise(d) no objection to the quick free not in the direction of the player involved. :yes:

    FHD. Retreating. Free taken while a player within 5m was influencing play. breach of fh rule
    Not retreating..... breaking down play. PC, card.
     
  2. justin-old

    justin-old FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2006
    Messages:
    3,101
    Likes Received:
    1
    Not influencing play......the defender is 'behind' the direction of the FH or, if in space on the goal side, does not attempt to play the ball while less than 5m from the FH.
    If he/she is close to an attacker then must be, IMO, 'influencing'.
     
  3. okeefe

    okeefe FHF Regular Player

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2007
    Messages:
    370
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would think the 5m was to give back the advantage to the team who was fouled.
    Not really a free, if it is easily contested, no?
     
  4. Hockeyjon

    Hockeyjon FHF Regular Player

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    0
    Deegum
    I'm gonna try!
    I think the discriptor 'player is standing 5 meters from the ball but not influencing play, the free hit need not be delayed'.
    Is more for guidance for umpires to avoid 'us' blowing our whistle to give the infringing team time to retreat. I know the FIH want the game to flow, and by making the attacking team wait until the defender has retreated the required 5 meters, WE will slow the game up.
     
  5. deegum

    deegum FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    2,370
    Likes Received:
    33
    I'm afraid folks you are ignoring the qualification in the guidance and not reading the rule in full. (- or appreciating the spirit of the game :p)


    Now why that qualification?

    Most of you are reading that as " the attackers may take ANY free hit in ANY direction as soon as they please."


    Again I ask, if the FH can in all cases be taken as soon as the attack pleases. what function does the phrase "If a player is standing within 5 metres of the ball but not influencing play.. " serve.


    I'm saying that it means that if the player is not attempting to retreat to the 5m distance..... the free hit may be taken so long as it otherwise complies with the rule.




    BUT if the player IS retreating properly, you've got to wait.


    The defender is unfairly disadvantaged if the ball is hit within his " defensive" arc and he hasn't been allowed to comply with the 5m.

    Note that it is a requirement of the rule that for a hit to be taken, all defenders must be 5


    However if the free hit is taken in another direction, say square or clearly out of the reach of the defender, he is not ( generally ) disadvantaged and the offence of an early take is trivial.
     
  6. Hockeyjon

    Hockeyjon FHF Regular Player

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry
    I now give up! It obvious I cant convince you!
    I think natural justice would guide you to conclude that your interpretation of the rule is a big advantage the the defending team, and making fouls around the circle is still very controllable from the defences perspective. It also slows the game down.
    Can I suggest you ask your coullegue, the players & coaches at the weekend if they agree with your interpritation, should the incident occur?
    Then at least you will all be on the same script
     
  7. deegum

    deegum FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    2,370
    Likes Received:
    33
    Jon, just explain the rule to me.

    no dissertation about " flow", no " too much advantage" no " natural justice"- just the rules

    "HOW much Flow" comes later.

    The rule book says in many places " it shall be so"
    Attackers and defenders argue about too much, too little advantage, and from time to time the rules are altered to accomodate things

    In the meantime the umpires apply the rules, sensibly.

    If the attack can take the FH as soon as they please,

    when does the clause "If a player is standing within 5 metres of the ball but not influencing play, the free hit need not be delayed." have any relevance?
     
  8. redumpire

    redumpire FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,585
    Likes Received:
    2,718
    Deegum, We've established before that you're in a minority of 1 (or possibly 2, if ZigZag is around) on this one. That doesn't mean you're wrong of course; but it does mean that your pre-match chat next time you umpire a game should cover this area, otherwise you and your colleague will be singing from very different hymn sheets.
     
  9. deegum

    deegum FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    2,370
    Likes Received:
    33
    Could you explain the meaning/ purpose of the clause under discussion , red?
    Please?
    :p
     
  10. redumpire

    redumpire FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,585
    Likes Received:
    2,718
    Read the six pages of posts in the other thread Deegum.

    To get you started, here's what I said last time and I stand by that 100%. There's no point my trying to explain to you what I - and everybody else - thinks that that clause means in any more detail than I have done already because you're determined not to see it the same way and, frankly, it's just a little boring.

    When I umpire my next game on Sunday, if a defender plays the ball before having retreated 5m at a free hit that the attack take quickly I will give a free hit (or a PC, or possibly even a stroke) against him. It is what I, my colleague, the players, the spectators and 99.9% of the hockey-playing 'public' expect. As Hockeyjon said last time around:

     
  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
    deegum where in that statement does it say that 'if a defender is inside the 5m and influencing play then the FH must be delayed?'

    by your logic the 'a shot that hits a player within 5m above the shinpad' means that outside of those 5m that it isnt dangerous.

    That rule doesnt say anything about if the player is influencing play. It is simply to guide umpires that players who arent influencing play shouldnt matter.
     
  12. deegum

    deegum FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    2,370
    Likes Received:
    33
    Well folks a transformation on the road to Damascus.

    I found some old guidance.( there having been no effective change in the actual rule since it was published- some liberalisation on the stationary ball.)

    It makes it clear that the attack need not wait for the defence to be beyond 5m.

    However it also states that the FH has been taken when the ball has been moved.

    So players including those who had no time to get beyond 5m , can play the ball.

    Those who had time, but didn't, could be penalised.

    So I would umpire correctly even if for the wrong reasons. :eek:

    And Bulsara's defender was entitled to play the ball.

    Note that I never objected to a quick take not with in reach of a retreating defender. :yes:



    Reread the rule nerd. rofl
     
  13. Diligent

    Diligent FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2007
    Messages:
    4,193
    Likes Received:
    929
    Location:
    Hampshire (South Coast of England)
    By 'it', in 'it also states...', you presumably mean the old guidance, which has been obsolete since "... must move at least one metre" - currently Rule 13.2 b, and in any case probably refers to "after playing the ball, the player taking... must not play the ball again or approach within playing distance" - 13.2 d.

    Far from a 'road to Damascus' conversion, haven't you just stepped over the dead horse and started flogging its other side?
    Sorry mate - it's the same horse, it still isn't going to get up and pull your bandwagon, the band have walked on, etc. ;)
    Alone again. :sorry:
     
  14. johnreiss

    johnreiss FHF Top Player

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2006
    Messages:
    713
    Likes Received:
    32
    Location:
    teesside
    Sorry but I don't see the argument here. THere is no rule/iterpretation that states the attacker cannot take a fh quickly - he does not have to wait until defenders are 5m away. The defender knows (or should know) that if he plays it from within 5m he will be penalised and it is deliberate. Whether it is also "cardable" is another matter and depends on a number of factors eg when/score/1st time/etc of course if the defender doesen't play it or attempt to play it and stands off no problem - the attacker will presumably get the advantage of what is in effect a free pass.

    However I don't agree it is necesssarily an automatic offence espeecially if the attackers co** it up (they don't get a second bite of the cherry).

    To summarise the OPS question: Was the decision of PC correct? IMHO the answer is no - it was deliberate, it was inside the circle and it did prevent likely possession therefore the 3 criteria for a PS have been met.
     
  15. Bulsara

    Bulsara FHF Regular Player

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Messages:
    330
    Likes Received:
    15
    Deegum et al, I am now officially confused with a rule I was fairly comfortable with :baffled:

    Deegum, I am reading your posts and I am not seeing how quoting an older rule book and guidance is relevant to the way the game is played currently. I agree that you may have a point on a technicality but that is not the way and I imagine the majority of the people on this forum umpire. I am more interested in letting players play hockey than I am about the minutae of the rules. Tell me how this relates to the playing of the modern game and I am quite happy to say I will let a player play the ball within 5 metres if they are retreating, which I think is the crux of your answer (please correct me if I am wrong).

    I will admit I got the call wrong in terms of the card, as I still think it should have been a yellow, but to award a stroke I am still not convinced is the correct decision. In my mind to award a stroke the attacking team must be certain to either gain possesion or score a goal. Neither of these were the case and to throw a slightly different question in, in technical terms (allegedly) it should have been a stroke but how do you rationalise that and explain that to players who will see that type of technical decision to be 'out of the blue'?
     
  16. redumpire

    redumpire FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,585
    Likes Received:
    2,718
    Nobody except deegum does, mate. :rolleyes:

    _________________________________________________

    And as for digging out old guidance from a previous version of the rules: I'm sure there's some useful guidance about roll-ins (rolls-in?), penalty bullies and offside in the 1954 rules, but I wouldn't know because I throw all my rulebooks away as soon as a new one comes out because they become obsolete at that point.

    _________________________________________________

    Posted at same time as Bulsara's last, hence the overlap.
     
  17. Gilly

    Gilly FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2007
    Messages:
    643
    Likes Received:
    321
    Location:
    Peterborough
    But I thought you said that was the case...

    I suspect a bad case of Deegumitis - you are now arguing (with yourself) just for the sake of it!
     
  18. Twister

    Twister FHF Regular Player

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Messages:
    400
    Likes Received:
    21
    I tend to agree with you - I think that a PC and a yellow is much cleaner in terms of a decision on a technical offence. It feels right, whereas a PS, although probably technically correct, seems disproportionate...

    Could you justify it by saying that as the ball was outside the circle when the offence (not being 5m) occurred, then it's a PC? I think I could get away with that (just)!
     
  19. Bulsara

    Bulsara FHF Regular Player

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Messages:
    330
    Likes Received:
    15
    Gilly, you are correct I did say that but a definite 2 on 1 situation with a goalkeeper does not necessarily equal a definite goal, what it does infer is that possession would be gained and therefore yes I am arguing against myself and you are right it probably should have been a stroke. On the other hand I quite like Twister's reasoning and I am still not sure I would be comfortable awarding a stroke in this circumstance. As I said in a previous post I am now very confused over a rule I had previously felt very comfortable with!!
     
  20. Twister

    Twister FHF Regular Player

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Messages:
    400
    Likes Received:
    21
    To take it a stage further, all we're actually doing is playing advantage from the offence of not being 5m from the free hit to see what happens. In this instance the defender plays the ball - so back to the first offence = PC, and yellow card for the deliberate nature of the foul.

    I prefer that to a PS for a foul at the top of the circle in a fluid (defender retreating and caught out of position) and far from certain situation.
     

Share This Page