Injury/Blood rule substitution @ defensive short corner

Discussion in 'Game Management & Communication' started by nomad1, Feb 24, 2009.

  1. nomad1

    nomad1 FHF Newbie

    Joined:
    May 14, 2007
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    I had a situation in an indoor match recently ( i didnt post it in the indoor thread as i think it applies to outdoor as well) where we had a player injured with the blood rule and therefore had to go off the field. But we werent allowed to put anyone else on the field to replace him so had to defend the corner with one player short.
    Obviously this doesnt affect outdoor as much as you have excess players who would be running back from halfway.

    Why not allow a defensive team to substitute on a PC in case of injury/blood rule??
     
  2. keely

    keely FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2006
    Messages:
    10,403
    Likes Received:
    778
    Location:
    Calgary, Canada
    So in indoor, you'll be without one defender for the corner because you only had 5 to start out with. In outdoor, you can have your 5 behind the end line and then only 5 at the centre.
     
  3. The.Rampage.Rado

    The.Rampage.Rado FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,022
    Likes Received:
    204
    Location:
    Sofia, Bulgaria
    I don't think every SC defence variation of your team needs all of the 5 defs... Or I'm wrong?

    We usually use 3-4 with the last man just running around in circles....
     
  4. nomad1

    nomad1 FHF Newbie

    Joined:
    May 14, 2007
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry, i should have been more specific.

    I am aware of the rule, I am querying why there isnt an exception to the rule. It seems unfair in the current status and I cant see why an exception cant be written in.

    For example what would happen if 2 defenders clashed heads, bled and a short corner was given against them in the indoor world cup final. They then defend with 2 short concede a goal and potentially lose the world cup.. seems stupid. I dont think anyone will deliberately get injured or cut themselves to make a substitution for a df short corner.. and i really dont see a big advantage for a defensive team (attacking yes) in being able to bring on a specific player to take advantage of any exception.
     
  5. Pepe

    Pepe FHF Regular Player

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2009
    Messages:
    119
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nomad,

    I think you make a really good point. Presumably the original reason for the no subs rule was to prevent teams having specialist corner strikers in the squad who may be poor general players, but might be super drag flickers who are wheeled out only for corners.

    In the scenario you are describing, the defence would be doing nothing against the spirit of the game
     
  6. keely

    keely FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2006
    Messages:
    10,403
    Likes Received:
    778
    Location:
    Calgary, Canada
    Defenders don't deliberately injure themselves - they deliberately fake an injury so as to get a substitution for a more skilled PC defender or attacker. It's not that they can't write in an exception - they don't want to. The exception is made for the GK, and that's fair.

    But I guess if you don't like it, you can send a letter to the HRB and start your own campaign. :)
     
  7. PEHC

    PEHC FHF Regular Player

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    651
    Likes Received:
    0
    But he's talking about the "blood" rule, where your bleeding and the umpire makes you go off. Hence his description of clashing heads of 2 defenders, blood everywhere and they can't replace the 2 defenders due to the lack of an exception to the rule. ???
     
  8. dodgeyumpires

    dodgeyumpires FHF Regular Player

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Messages:
    521
    Likes Received:
    1
    I think this one comes down to fair play. In my mind that is just ridiculous. Not being able to being able to defend a PC fairly because of a rule like that? (in the extreme case that it actually happened) I would definately allow players to make a substitution. It seems only fair in my mind.

    But again.... In saying that, if I was told it was wrong or it is not the way it should be done at an international level (if I were to ever make it there HAHAHA) I wouldnt do it. But until then, I think that it is only fair to allow a substitution in that place. If ever questioned by a TD or UM I would say.. well in my opinion it is about fair play. It wasnt fair that they could defend their PC with only 3 players instead of five. I also know that it was an umpires decision - one which cannot be appealed. In my mind, only fair
     
  9. Martindk

    Martindk FHF Top Player

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    645
    Likes Received:
    48
    Location:
    Copenhagen
    You should be able to send a new player on the pitch , thats the fair play way , have never seen/heard about player getting a blood injury to get a "defence specialist" on the pitch, sounds very crazy....., it should be the umpire who make the call and not a rulebook.
     
  10. Bondy

    Bondy FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    385
    Likes Received:
    216
    Location:
    Auckland, NZ
    I'm pretty sure it would count as a technical decision - at a tournament, the umpire wouldn't get a say in whether the sub was allowed. Similarly, taking stokes in the wrong order in a PS comp is a technical decision, even though the umpire allowed it. And regardless, you should never deliberately make wrong decisions just because it can't be appealed.

    It's not up to us to decide whether the rules are right - it's up to us to umpire to the rules. Yes, it could be 'unfair', but what do you do if two attackers clash heads - and one of their only two subs is their drag-flicker? Is it also unfair that the attackers have to take the corner two players short?

    I do see the point people are trying to raise. I don't think a change is necessary in outdoor as you've always got enough players on to defend a PC (trying to imagine the carnage that would lead to seven players needing to be replaced with injury/blood!). But even with indoor, there's more to it than simply saying a defending player can be subbed for injury.
     
  11. Diligent

    Diligent FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2007
    Messages:
    4,182
    Likes Received:
    921
    Location:
    Hampshire (South Coast of England)
    No. The umpire must call from the rulebook.

    In practice: the indoor umpire might stop time for cleaning any blood off the floor - maybe time enough for the player to get patched and continue.

    Remember that an injured player can leave the field after the award of PC, but the substitute may not come on until the PC is over.
     
  12. redumpire

    redumpire FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,566
    Likes Received:
    2,713
    Or maybe you could be a little creative? Stop time without giving a decision; get the injured player(s) treated, subbed, whatever; then give the PC and get on with the game.

    Hey, it's just a suggestion... :boring:
     
  13. Martindk

    Martindk FHF Top Player

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    645
    Likes Received:
    48
    Location:
    Copenhagen
    I mean the biggest advance is getting a short corner , so lets make the advance bigger with the defencing team one player less ?, doesnt make sence for me because no player bleeds with purpose...., i can see it makes the umpire games easier, but is this Fair as we call hockey a gentleman sport??
     
  14. kristof

    kristof FHF Regular Player

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2008
    Messages:
    466
    Likes Received:
    0
    Exactly why it was brough in, it's what kind of led to the end of Calum Giles GB career!
     
  15. dodgeyumpires

    dodgeyumpires FHF Regular Player

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Messages:
    521
    Likes Received:
    1
    Thanks Red... Perfect! Time off then award PC.

    Bondy I wasnt saying anyone should go out and make a decision because it cant be appealed... hell why not get yourself appointed to a gf, take a suitcase of money and go award a stroke! It cant be appealed! It would only ruin your umpiring career.... I dont think any one here is that stupid or greedy

    I think we are all merely pointing out that in indoor which is the one we are referring to
    that it seems unfair that a rule that was put in place so people wouldnt gain an unfair advantage at PC (attacking or defending) seems could be double edged. In the rare case that two defenders do collide and blood goes everywhere we are left with a Keeper and two defenders. No chance to change that. The rule was put in place to stop subbing specialists at PC's, not to leave the defenders unfairly disadvantaged. We are well aware that it is fairly pointless to intorduce something into outdoor
    As to the decision whether its technical or not? Again, as I said perhaps at an international level it would be different. Perhaps you cant get away with bending the rules a little - but its bending them so it is fair to both teams involved in the game. A simple chat to the captain - if something happened down your end like this, we would let you do the same - its only FAIR

    By the way Bondy... who is that picture of giving the stroke? Surely thats not you? I dont think Ive ever seen you with a hat on
     
  16. Bondy

    Bondy FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    385
    Likes Received:
    216
    Location:
    Auckland, NZ
    This is by far the best way of dealing with it under current rules!

    Anyone got thoughts on this one?

    And dodgey, yes, it is me - the hat is a recent acquisition, knowing that I'm umpiring NZ A v India this evening and knowing where the sun sets at Albany (ie, right in the umpire's sight-line), it seemed like a good idea!
     
  17. justin-old

    justin-old FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2006
    Messages:
    3,101
    Likes Received:
    1
    Suits you, Bondy :) Headgear is, IMO, useful in low (or hot!) sun. (I also found a cap useful under floodlights, which I hated)

    I suspect that , like me, redumpire recalled this having arisen previously, elsewhere, as well as the suggested 'legal way around' the perceived unfairness ;)

    But youhave to be on the ball to do things in that order...one of the big advantages of talking it through in such a forum :)
     
  18. dodgeyumpires

    dodgeyumpires FHF Regular Player

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Messages:
    521
    Likes Received:
    1
    Well... suffer the conequences of trying to play fair? I dont like argueing with you Bondy.... you always win.
    Anyways.... best of luck tonight mate. Let me know how you go
     
  19. johnreiss

    johnreiss FHF Top Player

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2006
    Messages:
    713
    Likes Received:
    32
    Location:
    teesside
    Interesting point, but presumably the op awarded the pc for an offence by a defender. Subsequently or as a rsult of the offence 2 defenders have to go off under the blood rule. Becaise the offence occurred 1st does not the Pc have to be awarded in which case a sub is not permitted. Clearly if there was nno offence and the ump stoipped the game on safety grounds, no offence = no pc = no problem.

    Umpires have to umpire in accordance with the rules and not how he thinks the rules should be. Yes many rules are open to interpretations and not every umpiure will interpret somethings the same weway, but surely a clear rule thast states neither side can sub at a Pc is clear as crystal and it not therefore open to interpretation.

    F|inally, I think there may be a case for allowing subs at pc's, but if the attackers cannot bring on their specialist df, a similasr rule should also apply to defenders. To treat both pareties the same seems only fasir to me.
     
  20. dodgeyumpires

    dodgeyumpires FHF Regular Player

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Messages:
    521
    Likes Received:
    1
    Yep! Sure John... thats one way of looking at it. And to be faur.. quite probably the best way fo looking at it as a whole. If everyone went out there and umpired by the rules and only by the rules.

    The unfortunate thing is it can be quite inhibiting. Imagine if we all went out there on the pitch tomorrow and made sure that every free hit that was taken was stationary. Made sure that every free hit was within 1 or 2 metres of where the actual offence occured. It would be a night-mare. We would be stabbed! by players and coaches! Some of us anyway. Thing is, the rules aren't always fair. Sometimes theres things that are just not covered by the rules.
    And thats were the fair play thing comes in. If I make a wrong call, then reverse it because I know I am wrong, most of the attack(who are now turning into defenders) are in front of the hit ready to receive a pass. Now all of a sudden, they are on the defence, running back trying to recover from a mistake that I made. The opposition now take a quick free hit and gain a huge and unfair advantage. A quick pass and it can turn into a 2 v 1. There is nothing in the rule book that says I can slow down a free hit. In fact, it would be against the rules (advatage... if it doesnt help the team whos ball it is you cant blow it) to slow them down. But time after time... (with the many mistakes I make) I will stop them, allow the defenders to get back and then allow play to continue.
    Its only fair. I made a mistake, no team should gain benefit from that. So I break the rules but make it fair. I dont think any players have a problem with that... just swing the arguement round and say if it was the same for you guys you would hate it if I let him go.
    Theres one example of blatently breaking the rules for fair play. IM not saying we should do it all the time, and some of us not at all. But for those who are quite experienced (not me) and know the game of hockey, I think it helps. Completely different story if its a new umpire.

    Just a different point of view?
     

Share This Page