Interesting penalty ruling at pan am cup

Discussion in 'Outdoor Umpiring Questions' started by peterwins, Aug 9, 2017.

  1. peterwins

    peterwins FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2007
    Messages:
    743
    Likes Received:
    139
  2. Diligent

    Diligent FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2007
    Messages:
    4,122
    Likes Received:
    881
    Location:
    Hampshire (South Coast of England)
    Assuming 4x15 quarters, and noting the green in the 57th minute: the player would be coming back with only a minute and a bit to go.

    Perhaps the player said something to the technical team and/or umpire as the suspension ended, which escalated into sitting down for another 5. Perhaps there was an issue about when he actually sat down, and he was rude about being off too long. Perhaps the dispute about the ending of the suspension was deemed different enough from the earlier dissent at an umpiring decision. Perhaps it was something else.

    Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps...
     
  3. peterwins

    peterwins FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2007
    Messages:
    743
    Likes Received:
    139
    Fair enough. Understand that we had to be there:)
     
  4. Gingerbread

    Gingerbread FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,546
    Likes Received:
    444
    Just remember that whatever happens in top level games, you should apply the rules of hockey to your own games unless there is some specific directive otherwise.

    2nd YC worthy offence = red card (as you cannot give the same card for the same offence to the same player)

    Dissent is also (for English based games) not the "temporary suspension" RC, they must have the standard red card form with mandatory suspension
     
  5. johnreiss

    johnreiss FHF Top Player

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2006
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    31
    Location:
    teesside
    no doubt red will correct me if i'm wrong but according to the rules of hockey it is POSSIBLE to give 2 yellows for the same offence However I agree it something that should be discouraged.

    I believe that if the ump believes that the 2nd yellow is not worthy of a straight red and subsequent automatic suspension he can give a technical red which means permanent suspension from that game but no automatic ban. Of course if a repeat offence is worthy of a straight red one should give it.
     
  6. Gingerbread

    Gingerbread FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,546
    Likes Received:
    444
    No

    The rules of hockey say it is possible to give the same player 2 yellows for DIFFERENT offences not the same offence. The rules are very clear a player CANNOT get the same card for the same offence

    FWIW the rule is below

     
    #6 Gingerbread, Aug 11, 2017
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2017
  7. MikeyBobs

    MikeyBobs FHF Top Player

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2011
    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    74
    Yes I agree .... but the report says "In Men’s Match #6, Garcia received 2 yellow cards for dissent – in the 44th and 60 the minute of play," ..... which sounds like a red to me, but of course "you had to be there" ...... is dissent differential? Slightly annoying and quite irritating perhaps? I hope not ..... I hope one of the umpires had a compelling case/explanation.... !!! Clearly the tournament TD thought so, which is fine ....
     
  8. Gingerbread

    Gingerbread FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,546
    Likes Received:
    444
    In the normal rules of hockey yes that was an incorrect decision by the umpire as you cannot give the same offence the same card, but tournaments aren't normal hockey and they may have been totally correct in that situation
     
  9. Diligent

    Diligent FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2007
    Messages:
    4,122
    Likes Received:
    881
    Location:
    Hampshire (South Coast of England)
    As suggested in my earlier reply: perhaps they were different sorts of dissent, so 2 yellows was reasonable.
     
  10. redumpire

    redumpire FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,428
    Likes Received:
    2,593
    @johnreiss no, you're wrong. See @Gingerbread's explanation of why.

    As for why no red card / no ban, I don't know the story, but the TD is at liberty to review any and all evidence before coming to a decision. I'm sure there are very good reasons why the player wasn't banned. I'm equally sure that Paula Parks is a far more experienced TD than anyone on this forum and knew exactly what she was doing.
     
  11. Gingerbread

    Gingerbread FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,546
    Likes Received:
    444
    How deep into semantics do you want to go to try and separate different types of dissent? Abuse to the umpire and then comments said to a team mate that the umpire hears? An outburst of swearing at a decision directed to the air and then swearing directly at the umpire? Dissent is dissent, 2 YC is not something that should be encouraged and certainly not to the extent people should believe you can give 2 yellow cards for the same offence or you go down the route of "well the first YC was for breaking down play with a deliberate stick tackle, they did the same offence but with a physical element so I'll class it as 2 separate and not give a red"? Whatever tournament rules may be in place (or not) is not applicable for general hockey which is the point I was trying to make, elite hockey is high pressure and intense, only the best umpires get there and what they do/don't do is only a matter for them and their coaches and whatever regulations apply e.g. the decision not to ban the player.

    I always worry about the bread and butter hockey with umpires refusing to give red cards to avoid bans or paperwork and giving them an excuse like suggesting 2 yellows can be given for the same offence with a bit of tweaking of the reason does give them that angle to keep doing it. Decisions for elite level hockey should only be used in normal hockey on the basis that FIH tell us to do it :)

    @redumpire

    The match report as mentioned above says the player received 2 YC for dissent during the course of the game (44 min and 60 min) - so it was an umpire decision presumably, not a TD one. The TD decision not to issue a ban is neither here nor there as tournament rules apply, not questioning what happened after.
     
    #11 Gingerbread, Aug 12, 2017 at 10:45 AM
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2017 at 12:18 PM
  12. UmpireHockey.com

    UmpireHockey.com FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Messages:
    1,148
    Likes Received:
    70
    One could argue that no two actions are the SAME because, well, they simply can't be. Different places on the pitch, different times of day. For example, one at 3p and the other 16 minutes later.

    This seems to be another case of the rules are written perfectly as long as what is written doesn't really matter. This dissent was verbal -- yellow. The next one body language -- also yellow. This encroachment by Blue #3 was at 3 meters -- green. This one by Blue #3 was at 2 meters -- green again. THIS one by Blue #3 was at 4 meters -- green again. Now, if one is green, and the next a 5 minute yellow, and then the next a 10 minute yellow (and don't say a 15 minute yellow is next as that just gums up the works -- let's keep it simple), some here will say absolutely don't go to red as red is to be reserved for very nasty actions. So, another 10 minute yellow because so-and-so will, eventually, get the point?

    I would prefer just cards based on whatever the infringement is. Examples, greens for minor stuff -- any number of multiple things in the category of minor. Eventually, when they've got five or six people out, they WILL get the point. Yellow for breakdowns and physicals (pushing but not hitting). Again, eventually, when they've got five or six people out, they too WILL get the point. Red for hitting, injurious physical takedowns.
     
  13. Nij

    Nij FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    May 22, 2012
    Messages:
    1,609
    Likes Received:
    572
    The solution to inconsistent applications of rule is not creating more rules for people to learn about, remember poorly, forget the technicalities of, or be unable to apply because of limitations in the region they play and umpire.

    Rulebooks that require hundreds of pages of convoluted explanation and exception and notes and rulings and specification are enormous wastes of time for everybody concerned.

    FIH and national associations have spent the last decade dragging hockey out of that horrific mess of technical details that produced rigid mechanical games that stopped completely ten times a minute.

    The rulebook clearly says to use common sense and think about the point of the rule, not just what it says. International umpires repeatedly tell us to think about what the game is meant to be, and umpire to make that happen, not look for "gotcha" moments. What happens when we go that way? Action, excitement, tension, flow, fun. Your idea would be going backwards by twenty years.
     
  14. UmpireHockey.com

    UmpireHockey.com FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Messages:
    1,148
    Likes Received:
    70
    Hmm. I put forward the case for more flexibility, less rigidity. The rule book says this, "...when an offence for which a card has already been awarded is repeated, the same card must not be used again and a more severe penalty must be awarded." To use common sense, I believe you are proposing that umpires must break the rules. A knee jerk reaction that changing the rule book, which the FIH has done many, many times, is to assume that doing so would create hundreds of pages of convoluted explanation and exception and notes and rulings and specification. The evidence of the many, many changes that the FIH has made demonstrates that such disastrous consequences simply do not happen. If those fears were true, the current rule book would have thousands of pages of convoluted explanations and exceptions and notes and rulings and specifications. It doesn't so, let's drop that oft repeated nightmarish fear mongering.
     
  15. Diligent

    Diligent FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2007
    Messages:
    4,122
    Likes Received:
    881
    Location:
    Hampshire (South Coast of England)
    Yes it does say that in the book, but not as a rule, but as advice to umpires. shortly after advice that "the spirit of the Rule and common sense must govern interpretation" and "the relative seriousness of an offence must be identified". The report says "Having reviewed the awarding of 2 yellow cards,... a suspension is not warranted", *and I think we can assume it isn't just the TD saying that, but rather reporting the decision of a review panel By "no suspension is warranted" that says to me that they agreed with the umpire that, on a spirit and common sense basis, it would have been unfair to show red, with its consequence of suspension from one or more subsequent games. I read it as saying the umpire's judgment of "yellow", in the 60th minute of 60, was fair enough.

    * Edit in response to redumpire's post below - the rest still stands.

    Plus this:
     
    #15 Diligent, Aug 13, 2017 at 4:17 PM
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2017 at 7:32 PM
  16. redumpire

    redumpire FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,428
    Likes Received:
    2,593
    @Diligent - all decisions relating to suspensions etc during the tournament are at the TD's sole discretion. There is no review panel. The TD's decisions can, however, be appealed to an appeal jury. That is a relatively rare occurrence. It's certainly never happened to me.
     
  17. UmpireHockey.com

    UmpireHockey.com FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Messages:
    1,148
    Likes Received:
    70
    "the same card must not be used again"

    You call that "advice"? Come on. Like, advising someone not to wear sunglasses by pointing out the various reasons why an adult should consider the pros and cons of wearing them but not to just tell them something like "umpires must not wear sunglasses."?

    If it were truly advice, it should be written as such.

    Perhaps, "it is prudent not to use the same card again" or some similar, um, advice.
     
  18. Diligent

    Diligent FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2007
    Messages:
    4,122
    Likes Received:
    881
    Location:
    Hampshire (South Coast of England)
    Sorry, my mistake. I misremembered the title of that section: it's Umpiring, not Advice to Umpires - and the whole book is the Rules of Hockey. Don't know where 'Advice..' came from, maybe from Guidance to Umpires and Players in old Rule Books? Yes, you got me on "must have a thorough knowledge of the rules" - how embarrassing :oops:. But actually, I'm not worried: the Umpiring section has no 'Penalties' Rule.

    So maybe there is a case for regarding "Playing..." as Rules, and "Umpiring" as advice? Sure, both sections have a lot of "must.." and "must not...", but the Umpiring section is a good deal less rigorous in its stipulations, with rather a lot of gaps and contradictions: I must penalise intentional offences firmly, but I must apply advantage if it is the most severe penalty, and I must not use the same card again, but my interpretation must be governed by the spirit of the Rule and common sense. However, since there is no penalty for breaking one or other 'must', the umpire can choose with impunity, so long as it is fair: chosen with a sense of justice and integrity (1.3b).

    I'm trusting that's what the officials in the OP did.
     

Share This Page