Free Hit 5 meters - Stroke or PC?

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

  1. justin-old

    justin-old FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2006
    Messages:
    3,101
    Likes Received:
    1
    "A PS is a big penalty for a big foul."


    A slight OT diversion, but this is only true figuratively speaking....the 'foul' itself may be the tiniest nudge or stick-block which deny possession, or a deflection off a foot which just prevents a goal's being scored...it's the effect of it which is 'big'.
    (Not nit-picking here, keely, I think it's an important distinction.)

    Sometimes such an incident is so small that only the umpire, the offender (and maybe the 'victim') know that it's occurred and...correctly...giving a PS is a very big decision to communicate to the players! :rolleyes:
     
  2. keely

    keely FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2006
    Messages:
    10,403
    Likes Received:
    778
    Location:
    Calgary, Canada
    You're right, justin. A "big foul" doesn't have to be loud, or a big dangerous collision - but something that has a big effect. Sorry that I didn't make that clear at the outset.
     
  3. rf253

    rf253 FHF Starter

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    North Coast NSW, Australia
    Hi all
    This is my first post here but I think it is great to read what other umpires view and percieve in the rules of the game.
    So this it just my two cents worth and I have to ask this question first.
    Does an intentional offence in the circle automatically mean a PS. No it doesn't (see rule 12.3b) Penalty Corner offence only.
    The factor to be taken into consideration being possession of the ball at the time of the infringement. The only difference to the wording which is almost identical see (Rule 12.4b) is that the attacker actually has possession of the ball at the time the infringement is made.
    The attacker has taken the free hit and no longer actually has possession.
    The other factor as to whether it prevented a probable goal (rule 12.4a) is still a big call even with 3 on 1 but the decision process would be relative to your opinion as to the quality of the players, keeper etc, certainly the opportunity to play the ball is there in both rules but the possession is not and then whether or not it prevented a probable goal.
    That then leaves you with two choices of what action to take. Yellow and PC if you feel that it wasnt a probable goal or a PS if it was.
    As some others have stated each scenario is different and you would generally have to see it but from the gist of it I interpreted I would perceive that a YC and PC would be sufficient.


    Oops just read back and realised there were another 5 pages listed :eek:
     
  4. justin-old

    justin-old FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2006
    Messages:
    3,101
    Likes Received:
    1
    Hi rf253 & welcome :)

    The rule 12.4.b says
    "b for 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 to reach out and illegally intercept a pass to a player in a potentially scoring position appears to qualify under the red bit!
     
  5. Resslys Agent

    Resslys Agent FHF Starter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2008
    Messages:
    98
    Likes Received:
    2
    Having read the numerous posts I think we're all making too much of this and I'm going with Twister on this one!

    The original offence is deemed to be the defender not being 5 metres away when the free hit was taken. Sed free hit was outside of the 'D'!
    Therefore the correct decision is to award a Penalty Corner and also probably a yellow card! Take away the 5 metre from the circle and it would be exactly the same.

    I feel we've all made too much of this one and everyone's gut reaction and also the correct decision would be exactly as I've said, no talk of Penalty Strokes!

    EOT - End of Topic
     
  6. Hockeyjon

    Hockeyjon FHF Regular Player

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    0
    Resslys Agent. The defending player is deliberatly breaking the rules inside the circle!!! How can that be a PC?
     
  7. Resslys Agent

    Resslys Agent FHF Starter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2008
    Messages:
    98
    Likes Received:
    2
    The original Free Hit is outside of the circle! You can not award a Penalty Stroke for a ball outside of the circle as you can not award a short corner for an offence outside of the 23 metre!

    Imagine a similar scenario just outside the 23 metre, free hit awarded to attack, play ball quickly, defender not 5 metres! Would you award a PC?

    I don't think so
     
  8. Twister

    Twister FHF Regular Player

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Messages:
    400
    Likes Received:
    21
    I don't see playing at the ball as the offence as you can do that anywhere on the pitch - it's playing at the ball within 5m of the free hit that makes the difference.

    Bring on the Eurohockey League rules - this moves all FHs within 5m of the circle back to the dotted line, and therefore removes the problem!
     
  9. 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
    resslys think of it a different way. Its not an offence for a defender to be within 5m, only if they interfere with play, at what point did the defender interfere with play? right when the FH was taken? or at the point where he trapped it?
     
  10. Hockeyjon

    Hockeyjon FHF Regular Player

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    0
    If the offence took place inside the 23 meter area? Yes I would award a PC, whats more I have!
     
  11. rf253

    rf253 FHF Starter

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    North Coast NSW, Australia
    ditto Hockeyjon
    I agree it is where the infringement is committed and not where the FH was taken that dictates the penalty inside the 23m area so I too would be pointing to the goals for a PC for sure for an intentional offence inside the 23m zone.

    Justin I am aware what the wording of the rules state but as I stated please also read rule 12.3b and explain the difference as both are intentional offences inside the circle area and they both are worded exactly the same except that one a PC only is awarded if the attacker DOESN'T have possession. The PS is if they DO. Both also state 'or an opportunity to play the ball'
    That was what I was trying to point out, simply because an intentional offence is committed in the circle it does not automatically mean that a PS is awarded, which a something a lot of ppl tend to think
     
  12. deegum

    deegum FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    2,370
    Likes Received:
    33
    Interesting point rf- and correct.
    If a defender, for instance punches an attacker in the circle and fells him, PC, not PS unless... ( probable goal etc. )

    but digressing a bit from the topic - cos I said I wouldn't comment on it further :p:

    if a PC has already been awarded and a punch occurs before it is taken can you award a PS?:

     
  13. rf253

    rf253 FHF Starter

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    North Coast NSW, Australia
    deegum
    I like your thinking :eek:

    In answer to your scenario PC

    PS cannot be awarded if you look at the requirements of awarding a PS.

    The punching certainly deserves a more severe penalty and I would have no hesitation in showing a RED CARD
    Certainly it fits the criteria of 12.5b but is not a breach of the pc but a personal penalty IMO.
    Under the guidelines in awarding a PS is there conditions to award a PS from a PC, except for 12.4c where persistently breaking over the backline a PS can be awarded along with a yellow card to the player if it is the same player identifie but then that is occurring during the taking of the PC also. Am I correct in reading it that way or not ? :yes: :no: ???
     
  14. justin-old

    justin-old FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2006
    Messages:
    3,101
    Likes Received:
    1
    The rule speaks of an offence against a player who has an opportunity to play the ball....if it's being passed to him and is illegally intercepted, does that not constitute an offence against him?
    One could argue, I s'pose, that as it is only en route the offence is against his team, but that seems a rather perverse interpretation.
    If your team-mate passes to you, in a good position for a shot at goal, but a defender illegally stops that pass, say intentionally with his foot, that's gotta be a PS ....if I'm umpiring, anyway :)
    What's the difference here?.....if the ball is passed to a player, then surely that player 'has an opportunity to play it'?

    [We have discussed previously the question of upgrading a PC to a PS and I'd suggest it clouds the issue here]
     
  15. rf253

    rf253 FHF Starter

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    North Coast NSW, Australia
    Justin
    your scenario of intentionally stopping the ball with the foot inside the circle is not an uncommon situation. So here is my question to you how does that not fall under Rule 12.3b (penalty corner) but apparently does to 12.4b (penalty stroke).
    Both state 'For an Intentional offences in the circle'
    both state 'or an opportunity to play the ball',
    the key difference between them is simple,
    one states 'does not have possession of the ball'
    the other 'has possession of the ball'
    As an umpire and umpire coach I find this an interesting comparison of the rules and put it to the trainees to see how they break them down and interpret them. :eek: ;)
     
  16. keely

    keely FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2006
    Messages:
    10,403
    Likes Received:
    778
    Location:
    Calgary, Canada
    Well, the ball is in the process of being passed from one teammate to another. That's not hard to find as qualifying as "an opportunity to play the ball."

    The type of event I envisage as qualifying as a PC "for an intentional foul in the circle by a defender against an opponent who does not have possession of the ball or an opportunity to play the ball" is the rare situation (at least, rare in the sense that it's seldom caught by umpires) where a defender physically interferes with an attacker (grabs their shirt or stick, for example) when the ball is nowhere near and not headed in their direction.

    Where's the matter of interest here? Seems pretty clear-cut to me.
     
  17. justin-old

    justin-old FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2006
    Messages:
    3,101
    Likes Received:
    1
    Oh, heck, gonna have to get the rules, up, now, to check my memory, and I 'll then edit this post, but IIRC, the PC rule doesn't say anything about an intentional foul on a player who has an opportunity to play the ball(or 'gain possession'), does it ???

    Watch this space!
    OK been there!
    the relevant PC rule says:
    "b for an intentional offence in the circle by a defender against an opponent who does NOT have possession of the ball or an opportunity to play the ball"[/b]


    So the distinction is clear, IMO...if the 'intentionally offended-against' player did NOT have "an opportunity to play the ball", it's a PC, but if he DID, it's a PS.

    Quod erat demonstrandum (or whatever) :)

    Now one could, I suppose, argue about what "an opportunity to play the ball" is, but I think being on the receiving end of an attempted short(ish) pass would qualify as having such an opportunity.
    As I think I said(or implied) previously, if the intended recipient of the pass had been behind the defender, then one could question whether such opportunity really existed...but this was clearly not the case here.
     
  18. Handmedown

    Handmedown FHF Regular Player

    Joined:
    May 27, 2007
    Messages:
    100
    Likes Received:
    0
    Obviously this does not apply to goalkeepers, because they shouldn't be in the opposition circle unless time is stopped.

    Opportunity to play the ball is not specifically described. However I think we can create some simple rules from those stated above in the rulebook.

    The first point to consider is obvious. The player doesn't have to be within playing distance where the offense occurred (however he or she could be), however the ball should have been on a path that would have conjoined with the likely path of the player at any point inside the circle. Other minors things to consider here are other attackers or defenders which could also play the ball. If a defender other than the offending defender would have likely intersected the ball's path (should it have been in the attackers direction) then the attacker most likely would not have been within playing distance of the ball and a PC would be the likely case. It becomes more complicated - suppose a defender intersected a ball that would have been heading right for an attacker (who was intentionally offended on). However the defender that intersected the ball took possession within playing distance of the attacker. Regardless of whether the attacker was offended on the defender would have taken possession anyway.

    An intentional offence occurred against a player that had an opportunity to play the ball would be according to the rules PS. Playing the ball is stopping, deflecting or moving the ball. Would a tackle constitute stopping the ball? If the tackle was successful and legal, then yes it would count as playing the ball. A tackle which involves stick obstruction is still likely the move the ball as a direct action of the attackers stick but does it count as playing the ball?- however there it is obviously difficult to predict whether a tackle would have been legal or not.

    Playing the ball has nothing about actually retaining possession nor anything about influencing play. An attacker could be running towards the ball carrier (defender who was also running - away from the attacker) and then is intentionally offended upon. If the attacker would have gotten within playing distance before the player offloaded the ball, it should be a PS (presuming this is all inside the circle). Now, exactly the same scenario except that the attacking player would not have caught up to the defender until outside the circle (therefore would have made the tackle outside the circle). The attacker is intentionally fouled inside the circle, but would have only affected play that would have occurred outside the circle. Still PS? According to the rules, yes.

    Also the player must be capable of playing the ball. An attacker who dropped his/her stick obviously cannot. An attacker lying on the ground facing the opposite direction I would have doubts about, however the offence would have had to occur whilst he/she wasn't lying on the ground, as taking out a player would definitely remove any chance they might have had of placing themselves into a position within playing distance.

    Obviously I've over-complicated it, as I think in most cases it would be rather obviously when a player would or would not have had an opportunity.
     
  19. Hockeyjon

    Hockeyjon FHF Regular Player

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    0
    Handmedown
    Wow thats complicated,,, I think you've covered most eventualities there. You need to get out more!!!
     

Share This Page