Hitting the ball mid-air on goal

Discussion in 'Outdoor Umpiring Questions' started by AnnGoalie, May 10, 2017.

  1. Krebsy

    Krebsy FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2014
    Messages:
    1,990
    Likes Received:
    774
    Location:
    Bristol
    I think this point is important.
    Currently the "interpretation" of the rules we have interpreted is materially in contradiction with the rules. Presumably and we have good reason to presume, with support or instigation of the FIH given the umpires who are blowing this way are at the very top level.
    Yet successive iterations of the rule book have failed to address this clear contradiction which is somewhat puzzling.
     
    nerd_is_the_word and Gingerbread like this.
  2. Gingerbread

    Gingerbread FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,527
    Likes Received:
    437
    Yeah I mean at top levels though, not what an individual does. I know I would be slated by a L2 coach (let alone what an FIH level umpire and coach would say!) for blowing anything but a PS for a player hit on the line. The generally accepted view (as you'll have seen quoted on here) is pretty much "player stands on the line, knows the possibility of being hit, should expect to be punished if they can't stop the ball". I disagree it's off topic - judging when and where to blow PS, FHD or goal is an important part of allowing skillfull players to play 3D hockey
     
  3. nerd_is_the_word

    nerd_is_the_word FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2006
    Messages:
    2,220
    Likes Received:
    85
    Location:
    Queensland, AUS
    Completely agree. In my mind, the FIH is clearly, as a whole, happy with the idea that a player on the line "creates" danger by standing in a position where they can reasonably expect to have a ball lifted at them.

    The problem is that by not putting it in the rulebook it gives the opportunity for conspiracy theorists to say that it is a small section of the FIH who have subverted the actual wishes of the rest. Which seems, to most people, to be rather absurd, but unfortunately is not clearly spelled out in the rules.
     
  4. UmpireHockey.com

    UmpireHockey.com FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Messages:
    1,142
    Likes Received:
    69
    Emphasis is placed on safety. Everyone involved in the game must act with consideration for the safety of others.

    Players must not play the ball dangerously or in a way which leads to dangerous play. A ball is also [not "only"] considered dangerous when it causes legitimate [not "fake" (think soccer "injuries"] evasive action by players.

    Players are permitted to raise the ball with a flick or scoop provided it is not dangerous. A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous.

    "Yet successive iterations of the rule book have failed to address this clear contradiction which is somewhat puzzling." Agreed. Umpires should use these rules and guidance (and common sense) for judging what is and is not dangerous but, the FIH certainly isn't going to publish that players sacrifice their safety by standing here, there, or another place.
     
  5. Krebsy

    Krebsy FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2014
    Messages:
    1,990
    Likes Received:
    774
    Location:
    Bristol
    But the guidance and interpretation given by the FIH as reported on here is wholly contradictory to those rules.
     
  6. Diligent

    Diligent FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2007
    Messages:
    4,093
    Likes Received:
    868
    Location:
    Hampshire (South Coast of England)
    Some might share that thought, but I see no evidence to think that FIH has that idea, certainly not 'as a whole'. Accidents do happen, but a tiny proportion of serious injuries occur on the goal line - even for shots at goal, most accidents I've seen are out in the circle, usually from an unexpected deflection.

    When there has been a rule as you suggest - specific conditions for a shot on goal to be dangerous - there is a temptation to exploit it as a defensive tactic (ignoring the exhortation to consider safety), there is an increase in injuries, and we need another rule to penalise and discourage the tactic. Examples in the current rule book are the second and the first note to Rule 13.3L.

    In my mind, this is probably a matter that FIH keeps under fairly constant review, coming up again with the same answer: that the rules as written, and applied by umpires at any level of hockey, are pretty much optimally balanced between skill, spectacle, and safety.
     
    #46 Diligent, May 29, 2017
    Last edited: May 29, 2017
  7. UmpireHockey.com

    UmpireHockey.com FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Messages:
    1,142
    Likes Received:
    69
    "...as reported on here..."

    There's the rub.

    If my umpire manager were to seek out my reasoning for why I called X, I hope I would be able to use the FIH's rules to support my decision rather than something wholly contradictory that I read on the Internet.
     
  8. Nij

    Nij FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    May 22, 2012
    Messages:
    1,599
    Likes Received:
    551
    That's a bit disingenuous, given that this forum is quite possibly stocked with the highest concentration of international-level players, umpires and tournament officials outside an actual international tournament, and that you're in the USA where FIH rules are routinely ignored in favour of litigation prevention anyway.
     
  9. UmpireHockey.com

    UmpireHockey.com FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Messages:
    1,142
    Likes Received:
    69
    Is your advice to follow the FIH rules and guidance or what is postulated here on the Internet?
    Where did you read that, the Internet?
     
  10. Krebsy

    Krebsy FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2014
    Messages:
    1,990
    Likes Received:
    774
    Location:
    Bristol
    Nah, see you and I both know that these things are as reported by people directly connected to the guidance that the FIH give and whilst in isolation and without any thought for the context, It is right that something heard on an internet has little by way of veracity but as we know, in this instance we are in receipt of something rather more vigorous than hearsay.
     
  11. nerd_is_the_word

    nerd_is_the_word FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2006
    Messages:
    2,220
    Likes Received:
    85
    Location:
    Queensland, AUS
    I would hope that you are never actually taking major advice like this from an online forum and then applying it to a game without confirming it first with people you trust.

    A couple of things here; to the first part, I cannot provide evidence of such so there isn't much point debating personal opinion.

    the second part; Im not sure what part of the discussion this is aimed at, this is what we are saying has happened, just that they seem disinclined to put it down as a rule.

    the third part; Im with you that I think the FIH keeps reviewing this, along with most rules, completely regularly. It is just frustrating that a directive that they have given, they are unwilling to put down on paper.
     
  12. SPetitt

    SPetitt FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2013
    Messages:
    1,365
    Likes Received:
    334
    Location:
    Gloucestershire, Buckinghamshire & Costa del Sol
    There is a clear difference between being hit by a hard, lifted shot which you unsuccessfully attempt to stop/deflect, and being hit in a dangerous manner, by a hard shot which gives you no time to do more than attempt to avoid being hit.... and there should be a quite different umpire's reaction.
    As for an umpire's decision that there was dangerous play being 'over-ruled' by the other umpire, well, words nearly fail me .... fortunately no-one has ever tried it on me :mad:
     
    Ravennghorde and Krebsy like this.
  13. Krebsy

    Krebsy FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2014
    Messages:
    1,990
    Likes Received:
    774
    Location:
    Bristol
    I think what you are saying @SPetitt is probably closely related to the reason for the word "legitimate" being used as a prefix for "evasive action" when the rule book describes the parameters by which a raised ball should be adjudged as dangerous.
    If as you say, a player has an opportunity to make a considered and controlled play for a raised ball but simply runs out of talent then there is a strong argument for an umpire giving them less sympathy and possibly awarding a foul against them.
     
  14. SPetitt

    SPetitt FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2013
    Messages:
    1,365
    Likes Received:
    334
    Location:
    Gloucestershire, Buckinghamshire & Costa del Sol
    Thanks, @Krebsy ... one problem which still exists, IMO, is that the definitions of what is dangerous play are subjective, inconsistent and inadequate .... if, say, a player is hit above mid-chest by a hard rising hit/df, (s)he may have no chance either to play at the ball, or to take any 'evasive action' at all.
    In my book that is dangerous, no matter where on the pitch it occurs.

    [I have been hit twice like that, once , on the cheek-bone, due to a pitch fault. .... no foul, re-started with a bully. The other was a v hard raised shot from mid-circle ... I had no chance of getting a stick to it, but managed to turn sideways and was hit on the upper arm rather than the upper chest ... after first-aid, the ump and I agreed it had been dangerous...FHD ;) ]
     
  15. sanabas

    sanabas FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Messages:
    2,647
    Likes Received:
    989
    Both 'above mid-chest' and 'hard' are subjective, too. Whether something counts as dangerous will always be subjective, just like obstruction, gaining advantage, and so many other things are. If you want to come up with an objective wording for a danger rule that players wouldn't take sometimes take advantage of by deliberately getting hit, I'd be interested to hear it.

    Danger should be subjective. A ball that'd get no objections by anyone in first grade might be dangerous in u13s. I wouldn't want 1st grade and u13s to have the same objective rules for danger. It'd be annoying for all concerned if 1st grade played with what currently gets blown in u13. It'd probably encourage dangerous play if u13 played to 1st grade danger standards.
     
  16. lsfreaks

    lsfreaks FHF Starter

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2015
    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    8
    I tend to agree with SPetitt... If a lifted ball can be a free hit in the open field why cant the same "Rules" be more stringently enforced in the circle where there might be a more concentrated mass of people.
    eg. A postman at a PC... shot is wide and deflected by the injector from 2m outside the post, hits postman on chest... From what has been said PS, but why... was he in a position to play the ball :confused: did he see the ball :confused: did he move into the ball... All questions that should be asked before a decision is made. It cannot be that "because it's a a shot" danger cant apply o_O

    What is "legitimate evasive action" if you don't see the ball... As a keeper and hits from <5m ,are mostly guess work, if I cant see them knowing that I've got pads how are the poor player safe at those distances.
    IMO most hits at a player <5m should be dangerous if he plays the ball or attempts to play he has elected to do so and takes the risk of he's action.

    As Umps we have to be subjective of the skill available on the field(we aren't all created equal) Int hockey isn't Club hockey which isn't school hockey and as such the degree of which danger is see can't be see equal as the skill sets are vastly different:rolleyes:
     
  17. Gingerbread

    Gingerbread FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,527
    Likes Received:
    437
    If a player doing a flick is involved with a clever routine where they fake or slip the ball and the flick comes from another player/angle the player on the post may not see the ball, doesn't automatically make it "legitimate evasive action" as you'd be penalising the skill of the attack with their routine. It's all a bit messy, hence why it should be in the rulebook or official guidance videos from the FIH, not this wishy washy nonsense of the rule book saying one thing and the application being the opposite
     
  18. Krebsy

    Krebsy FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2014
    Messages:
    1,990
    Likes Received:
    774
    Location:
    Bristol
    That is indeed true.
    I wonder if clarification should detail which principle prevails?
    Does the right to take a shot at goal trump all or is the right to stand on the pitch (not obstructing etc.) to take precedence?

    Or to put it another way, does the requirement to play the ball safely no matter what the context the prevailing principle?
     

Share This Page