Free Hit 5 meters - Stroke or PC?

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

  1. Gilly

    Gilly FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2007
    Messages:
    643
    Likes Received:
    321
    Location:
    Peterborough
    Hmmm... not sure I buy that one.

    After all there is no offence until benefit is gained (i.e. the ball is played) when the ball is most definitely inside the circle (at the same location as the offence!) so I am still giving a PS and a rest.

    The way I see it, it is a deliberate act of cheating to prevent the opposition extracting the ultimate sanction (scoring a goal) so I (as an impartial umpire acting within the rules framework) must be seen to restore some sense of balance to the situation to avoid repetition or escalation.
     
  2. Hockeyjon

    Hockeyjon FHF Regular Player

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gilly
    Your rational is sound in IMHO.
    I know Balsara has given the PC due to the foul being outside the circle. To be honest I suspect I have done exactly the same thing in the past. But on what Balsara has described in his opening post I think it is a stroke.
    The players just have to be told the deliberate foul occured inside the circle. denying the attack likely posession that could have resulted in an attempt at goal. End of... I think!
    I don't want to be too hard on Deegum as I guess technically, the rules don't completely close out his argument. But I think the current interpritation of the application of the 5 meter rule supports the majority's opinion. Im sure Deegum has a thorough pre match chat with his coullegue to discuss consistancy should this situation occur thus avoiding any potential conflict during it.
     
  3. deegum

    deegum FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    2,370
    Likes Received:
    33
    6 new replies while I've been trying to render this into understandable and convincing English. Dare I press " Post" :eek: :yes:
    I obviously think there wasn't an offence :)
    It is the crux

    in fact the guidance I referred to included the remarks:

    a.players should not be penalised if they hadn't time to get away.
    b. holding up the free would be detrimental to flow.

    I think that those remarks still hold in the " modern" game and don't conflict with the basically unchanged rule

    I did say ( several times) that if the hit was taken quickly but not in the direction of the retreating player, I was happy with play on- no undue advantage.
    It was the idea of penalising a player who was doing his best to comply with the rules that "offended" me.
    At no point in this kerfuffle have I thought of criticising you

    Fair go Bulsara!!! :)
    it's not minutiae, but about the balance between flow and undue advantage
    Such judgments can be difficult. . Your example is one such case

    EG, In your OP you stated that the FH was taken from the correct spot.

    In a similar occurrence, with the player retreating at three metres, how far the hit was off " correct spot " and how far off " stationary" ball would mean the difference between him being at 3m, at the unarguable 5m? When would these tolerances become "undue advantage."?

    (I still maintain that immediately the attack play the ball the defence, are entitled to play itl
    -And for those who deliberately remained inside 5, and played it...their offence is breaking down play, not an offence against the FH rule of itself. )



    Contrary to the impression my views and attempts to explain them sometimes give, I have always been a play on umpire, long before it was fashionable.




    Red, the fact that guidance has been omitted from the rule book doesn't mean that it is now wrong.
    I'd suggest that until the rule is changed or new guidance given, it remains relevant/useful.
    WE don't have to reinvent the wheel
     
  4. redumpire

    redumpire FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,573
    Likes Received:
    2,715
    No, it's not wrong; it's just out-of-date and no longer deemed appropriate for inclusion in the Rule Book by the Hockey Rules Board.

    Round and round we go. I'm boring myself now. I shan't post anymore on this thread unless I'm wickedly provoked! ;)
     
  5. johnreiss

    johnreiss FHF Top Player

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2006
    Messages:
    713
    Likes Received:
    32
    Location:
    teesside
    Sorry, but I believe I may have misunderstood the OP's question. Did the defender play the ball when it was inside the circle (ie fh played into the circle to an unmarked attacker who is also in the circle, or is able to get to the ball that is in the circle)? If the answer is yes there is an offence that prevented a PROBABLE goal or there was a DELIBERATE offence that prevented an attacker from possession or LIKELY possession. Therefore the penalty has to be PS.

    If the attacker plays the ball outdside the circle to another attacker who is outside the circle (but will take it in) there is an offence, BUT a PS cannot be given since the offence has to be within the circle. Therefore PC

    If the attacker plays the ball to another attacker(inside or outside the circle is irrelevant) and he then co*** it up there is no offence, therefore play on - no PC or PS. There is no offence by the defender.

    I hope I've made my views clearer.
     
  6. Neo

    Neo Technical Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    652
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nope, he's not in a minority of one. ;) I'm following exactly what he is saying. Plenty of attackers will take advantage of any opportunity to take a free hit as quickly as they can to gain an advantage before the defence can reset themselves, and the 5M within the circle proximity especially so. You will see variations of umpiring practice when dealing with this, to those umpires who will call the play back, or blow the whistle really really early with the 5M sign just to make sure that the early shot is not taken {or if it is it can be legitimately penalised}, and umpires who use their judgement to allow the early play on for the attacking side (subject to danger etc).

    I didn't quite get the details of Bulsara's description, but: If the offence decided to play the free hit before the defender had been given a legitimate chance to retreat (and so gain the advantage of time before any other defence could get in place) then penalising the defender because the attacker stuffed up is like a free bonus - if you decide to take a FHD under those circumstances quickly and mess it, you have used your opportunity. The judgement in the call will be whether the defender was retreating slowly, or doing something else to impede the attacker (closing off angles) or whether is was simply a case of brilliant athleticism to be able to intercept the attacker's pass.

    I understand Deegum to be saying - call & interpret the action in front of you, but don't assume that there are only two outcomes (PS/Corner) - Bulsara seemed to think that there was some level of intention that warranted a penalty of sorts, but he wanted to hear other's opinions/experiences.

    Worms
     
  7. keely

    keely FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2006
    Messages:
    10,403
    Likes Received:
    778
    Location:
    Calgary, Canada
    No. What deegum is trying to argue is that the instant the ball is played on the free hit it's over, such that a defending player who was previously standing within the 5m radius of the ball is then permitted by the rules to freely play the ball.

    He bases this on a semantic reading of the rules in that the rule doesn't specify that once the ball is initially played, for a set amount of fractions of a second the 5m distance still applies. Since an attacking player cannot possibly play the ball at the exact instant that a defender does, he wins! How clever.

    Neo, he is definitely not referring to either a dangerous play or a manufactured foul (which I explored on the first thread red mentioned), which are factors to take into consideration when an attacker takes the free hit directly at a defender.

    Except this "reading" perverts the entire purpose of the rule and the way in which every other person understands it. The whole idea of a "free" hit is that it's "free" of having players from the opposing team within a certain range of the ball. Standing 1m away from the ball, a defender can cut off exponentially more space where the ball could be played than if they are back the additional 4m. Once the ball is played that defender can then step towards the ball as quickly as they can, but if they are within that 5m zone already they have gained an advantage not provided to them within the rule to be able to play a ball they more than likely would not have been able to get to had they been standing back 5m away.
     
  8. justin-old

    justin-old FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2006
    Messages:
    3,101
    Likes Received:
    1
    I think important questions are:
    1. as the rule requires everyone but the taker to be 5m+ from the ball, must we not allow both sides a reasonable amount of time to comply with this (on safety grounds?).

    2. If not, do we require the FH to be played safely wide of any defending player within 5m, and what constraints do we then place on such a player....a. that he must be attempting to retreat and b. that he makes no attempt to play the ball?

    3. If we are going for the second option, are we being strictly fair to the team defending the FH....bearing in mind that they have conceded it by some sort of offence?
    Is this not 'too much advantage', in that we are actually allowing the attack to contravene rule 13.2.f , presumably in the interest of 'flow', and because, maybe, we fear that the defence would exploit the rule by 'retreating too slowly'?
     
  9. Diligent

    Diligent FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2007
    Messages:
    4,187
    Likes Received:
    925
    Location:
    Hampshire (South Coast of England)
    My answers would be:

    1. No. Only that, given time, they should show signs of compliance, or intention to comply.

    2. Since not; FH not so much to be played 'safely wide of', as 'not unsafely at', an opponent... a. even if they aren't retreating and b. they make no attempt to play the ball, except in self-defence.

    3. That's fair to the offending team. But we still shouldn't allow the taking team to break Rule 13.2.f (all 5m from FH within 5m of circle).

    In last Saturday's game, for a FH close to the circle, the first in the second half, players from both teams were within 5m, but mainly the defence. That one I had retaken with everyone 5m.

    The next FH from a similar position was taken quickly, threaded through a few defenders within 5m to an attacker 10m away, who scored. That seemed OK to me, and no complaints.
     
  10. deegum

    deegum FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    2,370
    Likes Received:
    33
    Keely I'll reply more fully later. (Got to go now..... some high class women's vets to watch) :yes:
    but I have consistently made a distinction - as the rules do- between a player honestly retreating, a player standing idly by, and an player dawdling/ attempting to delay .Read a few posts :yes:
     
  11. justin-old

    justin-old FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2006
    Messages:
    3,101
    Likes Received:
    1
    But, Diligent, by taking the FH when players of EITHER side are within 5m, they ARE breaking 13.2.f, and, in doing so, probably disadvantaging their opponents ???

    But as you say that 1. doesn't apply, despite the requirements of 13.2.f, are you not in danger of 'making-up your own rules'?

    Of course, this is another one of those instances where a rule is pretty consistently applied in a way which directly contravenes the rules....I would apply it this way, too, because I think to have to delay could unnecessarily disadvantage the 'offended-against' team....
    It behoves...(redumpire :) )... the defence not to give away FHs so close to the circle!
    However, it does seem to me to be another of the anomalies which could so easily be cleared-up, either with a slight modification in the wording of the rule, or by a note in the guidance.
     
  12. keely

    keely FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2006
    Messages:
    10,403
    Likes Received:
    778
    Location:
    Calgary, Canada
    By "allow both sides a reasonable amount of time to comply" do you mean, we hold up the taking of the free hit to make this happen? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It depends on the situation. In the OP, it was a 3 on 1 situation. To slow up the play so that other defenders could get back in position and materially affect the advantage that had been developed by the the teams themselves is highly interfering. It depends on where the attackers are if there is one within 5m and whether they are interfering with the play or somehow causing more advantage due to their position (changing the position of the defenders, for example).

    In another case unlike the OP, when you're not interfering with the flow because there is no opportunity that would be lost due to a slight delay but there is a high risk for danger, then yes, you may step in and get that 5m established. Your feel for the game is critical in determining the difference.

    We don't require a ball to be played wide of a defending player within 5m because they're not supposed to be there. They're taking up 15 yards of space behind them instead of 6 or 7 because of their greater proximity. That's the whole reason we ask for 5m - it confers the right amount of benefit to the team that didn't foul. We do require the ball to be played safely towards him if he's within the 5m, and we do not allow the attacking team to play the ball towards that defender attempting to retreat for the sole purpose of attempting to win another foul or upgraded penalty.

    Yes, absolutely - the player must be attempting to retreat and he must make no attempt to play the ball.

    I don't know where you're getting this assumption that the attack is within 5m as well. Was there a twist in the fact situation that I missed? Or is this something that you're introducing in order to flesh out a point? I really don't understand what you're getting at here.

    Setting that aside, for the reasons I've stated, I think it's the right amount of fairness to the defending team that they cannot interfere with the ball if they are within the 5m whether they are attempting to retreat or not.
     
  13. justin-old

    justin-old FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2006
    Messages:
    3,101
    Likes Received:
    1
    I was slightly playing Devil's Advocate here, keely, because I do see deegum's pov, although I would blow the way I and most others have said.
    And my saying 'play it wide...' was really just because I was too lazy to say 'not dangerously AT him' :sorry:

    I think you misunderstood my comment "we are actually allowing the attack to contravene rule 13.2.f "......I am saying that they are technically breaking the rule by taking the FH while there are players, of either side....in this case we are considering a defender... within 5m and possibly 'interfering with play'.
     
  14. Bulsara

    Bulsara FHF Regular Player

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Messages:
    330
    Likes Received:
    15
    Wooaahh, I thought this was a relatively straight forward issue and one which really only needed clarified in terms of the penalty to be applied to the contrevention of the rule. Having read through all the posts (I think) I would say that I can see both arguments and both points of view. However, I can never see me stopping a free hit being taken quickly by a team because one of the opposition is within 5 metres and there is space (in a crowded situation I would halt play until everyone is five) to play the ball. If the player defending the free hit makes a deliberate attempt to stop the ball for no other reason than to break the play up then I am going to penalise that player. In a lot of cases this will be a yellow card depending on the game time, game situation and where the free hit was taking place. I am not sure in the natural terms of justice that a team who have just offended should be allowed to slow the game down to their advantage.

    As I have repeated like a mantra so many times to people the rules are a framework within which we allow a game of hockey to be played and you make decisions within that framework and like all frameworks there are grey areas where you make a choice based on the situation and not necessarily within the strict limits of rule XX and you go with the spirit of the game and natural justice.
     
  15. justin-old

    justin-old FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2006
    Messages:
    3,101
    Likes Received:
    1
    I agree, Bulsara.....however, as is common, IMO, in such discussion forums we have reached a broad consensus, but then proceeded to dissect the rules' wording, mainly in an effort, I'd suggest, to make sure that we have really thought it through :)

    Unfortunately, these 'dissections' sometimes result in an obscuration of the fact that most of us agree on what to do!

    I actually believe it leads to a better understanding of the rules and why we apply them how each of us does.

    YMMV
     
  16. deegum

    deegum FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    2,370
    Likes Received:
    33
    No I am not and have not
    I've dealt with the player retreating in accordance with the spirit of the rules.

    A con man or a player who transforms himself from " don't worry about me..I'm too puffed to move' to an active defender -they are NOT playing in accordance with the (spirit of) the rules and should IMO be penalized as appropriate.

    Note there is no provision in the rules for taking the free while a player is trying to get outside 5, .. only for a stationary player. :yes:

    Keely:
    my goodness. did I say/mean all that. Such perversion. :no:

    The whole idea of a free hit is to take it in accordance with the rules, with the " balance of power " with the offended side.

    Ball stationary, close to where offence took place, with defenders 5m away.

    This is in the opinion of the rule makers sufficient advantage.

    Taking it so quickly that the defence CANNOT comply is in breach of that " balance" - "significant advantage" gained above and beyond the rule, is prohibited



    The end, Unless I am very severely provoked :p
     
  17. hullabaloo

    hullabaloo FHF Regular Player

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    266
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    aus
    So most of you are calling a stroke because the player has made a deliberate breach inside that prevented the attackers from gaining possession of the ball...


    Alternative situation: There is a FHA just outside the circle with everyone already 5m away; If, suddenly, a defender creeps forward in front of the attacker they're marking and ends up 4-4.5m away from the ball as it's being taken and traps it, has he not deliberately broken the rules and prevents the attacker from gaining possesion, therefore meeting (one of) the criteria for a penalty stroke to be awarded? Would this really be worth a stroke?
     
  18. redumpire

    redumpire FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,573
    Likes Received:
    2,715
    Good question hullabaloo, but surely the defender must know she's not 5m away and it's therefore a deliberate foul...
     
  19. johnreiss

    johnreiss FHF Top Player

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2006
    Messages:
    713
    Likes Received:
    32
    Location:
    teesside
    if ther fha is outside the circle, and a defender approache within 5m and interferes with the directon which the attacker wishes to play it it MUST be deliberate but CANNOT be aPS because the foul is outside the circle. If the defender is still inside the circle and he prevents the pass from inside the circle the deliberate foul precented likely possession therefore PS.
     
  20. keely

    keely FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2006
    Messages:
    10,403
    Likes Received:
    778
    Location:
    Calgary, Canada
    That's a different situation than the one in the OP and the distinction for me is the degree of breakdown of play. Technically yes, it is an intentional foul that prevents an attacker from playing the ball, but is that possession definite? In the original fact scenario only one defender stood between the ball and two of the attacker's teammates - a very clear potential scoring situation. In your example, there are very likely lots of defenders marking all of the attackers, the potential for scoring a goal much lower than in a 3-on-1 situation.

    A PS is a big penalty for a big foul. Much would depend on the potential danger that is prevented by the defender's .5-1m encroachment but I would be a lot less likely to call a PS in this situation. Other factors I would take into account are the number of infringements of this type earlier in the match and whether previous penalties had been administered for them.
     

Share This Page