Keeper - kicking back - field player Rule 10.1

Discussion in 'PS and Goalkeeping' started by BlackCat, May 10, 2007.

  1. BlackCat

    BlackCat FHF Regular Player

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    232
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi all,

    Question about the changing on the fly between a kicking back (keeper) and field player:

    Rule 10.1 A goalkeeper is:

    wears only protective headgear must not take part in the match outside the 23 metres area they are defending when wearing the headgear but may remove the headgear and take part in the match anywhere on the field.

    The protective headgear must be worn when defending a penalty corner or penalty stroke.
    ***
    So if a defender has removed her helmet to play beyond the 23 m and then finds herself defending in her circle (no PC, just free play), having not put her helmet back on, does she have keeper priviledges? In order words, can she play the ball with her body?

    A PC is called, she is forced to put on the helmet - does this mean she suddenly assumes GK priviledges?

    Does helmet = GK and conversely does no helmet = field player?

    How are we to distinguish when this player is a keeper and isn't?

    What happens if no equipment shows up?

    I originally felt this rule was very sensible, I find this addition of changing on the fly unclear and very annoying.

    Thoughts??? ???
     
  2. zippytime

    zippytime FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2006
    Messages:
    3,220
    Likes Received:
    3
    Blackcat,

    Players who do this still have rights in their D when not wearing the helmet(see dvids post below, it is in the umpires briefing for 2007. If the player without the helmet was doing something which would cause danger to others or themselves I would stop the game and in this situation I would be giving a foul against the GK and maybe a card to boot.

    If there is no helmet worn then they are GK, but if they are wearing it then they are a GK

    Of course the player gets GK privelidges when they are forced to put the helmet back on due to the Rules but then again they had them anyway

    Looking through this section might help http://www.fieldhockeyforum.com/index.php/topic,607.0.html
     
  3. David_Underdown

    David_Underdown FHF Regular Player

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2006
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    0
    Zippy,

    Per the FIH umpires' briefing you are wrong I'm afraid (although it was the same conclusion I had come to before reading the briefing). Surprised you haven't seen the previous threads on this around the place.

     
  4. zippytime

    zippytime FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2006
    Messages:
    3,220
    Likes Received:
    3
    should of looked at that briefing not the one for the umpires manager

    Cheers advid I shall edit my post now so as to erase the brain fart
     
  5. Kilmory

    Kilmory Administrator
    FHF Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Messages:
    5,117
    Likes Received:
    1,003
    Location:
    Wirral, UK
    Putting your unprotected body in the way of the ball is a privelidge?

    Go figure rofl
     
  6. redumpire

    redumpire FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,573
    Likes Received:
    2,715
    Here's an extract from the FIH's Rules of Hockey: 2007/8 Briefing and Guidance for Umpires, with the relevant bit highlighted in red. The full guidance can be found here. (And please let's not rekindle the old argument about the briefing not being in the rule book! It exists. It has the FIH's full support. It's posted to the FIH's website. We need to umpire according to what it says. End of story.)

    • When wearing protective headgear, goalkeepers may only take part in the game within their own 23 metres area. If a goalkeeper wearing only protective headgear does not remove the headgear before taking part in the game outside their own 23 metres area, a free hit should be awarded. Repetition means a free hit and appropriate card[*]Designated goalkeepers who only wear protective headgear may take part in the game outside their own 23 metres area, provided that they have safely removed their headgear. They must continue to wear a shirt or garment of a different colour to both teams, and still have goalkeeping rights when inside their own circle. They must wear the protective headgear at penalty corners and penalty strokes
     
  7. zippytime

    zippytime FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2006
    Messages:
    3,220
    Likes Received:
    3


    i thought they did have GK privelidges but when i looked in the briefing I had there was no mention so i assumed I was wrong, When David U corrected me I looked at the correct one and so edited my post, Bugger, must learn to read the correct info to back me up when I question my own memory
     
  8. redumpire

    redumpire FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,573
    Likes Received:
    2,715
    Always helps!!

    (I've edited my post since you quoted it - hence the slight difference.)
     
  9. BlackCat

    BlackCat FHF Regular Player

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    232
    Likes Received:
    0
    No sooner did I post this did I remember the FIH briefing - a momentary laspe. :p

    I haven't had to deal with the situation yet but got myself just a little confused when fielding a question from a young umpire.

    Thanks for the quick answers.

    And to why I hadn't seen previous thread - just joined up two days ago, haven't had a chance to review everything.
     
  10. David_Underdown

    David_Underdown FHF Regular Player

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2006
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry, that part of my reply was aimed at Zippy, not you.
     
  11. redumpire

    redumpire FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,573
    Likes Received:
    2,715
    Well what are you waiting for? Get reading...!! lol
     
  12. Cascadia

    Cascadia FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    2,282
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK, this is somewhat related, and I have been meaning to check up on this.

    Two weeks ago I was coaching and I pulled my team's goalie in the second half, as we were leading 6-0. Since this was the first time either umpire had umpired a game with only field players and no goalie, we had a short discussion about what my ex-goalie could and could not do, and how PCs were going to work etc. (I later got very ticked off when one umpire only allowed me four defenders back on a PC, but that's another story!!). Both umpires were under the impression that one defender must be wearing head/facial protection during a PC. My understanding was that only a GK must wear the head protection, which seems to be supported by the briefing, and by 4.2, which says that while field players are permitted to wear a face shield, no such protection is mandatory. In the end, we agreed on my interpretation, mostly because the likelihood of even having a defensive PC when we were clearly dominating the game was remote (we ended up having 2, but no biggie).

    Then I was talking with another umpire who is a bit higher up than me on the ladder, and she was going on about the same interpretation where one player MUST be wearing head protection on a PC, even if there is no designated goalie! :eek: Am I completely wrong on this, or is someone in my area spreading some abstract interpretation of the rules?! I might have missed something, but I could find nothing that indicates that, should the team be playing without a GK, someone must be wearing the headgear on a PC.

    In any case, to me, if someone is putting on a helmet, they are assuming the role of a GK - would that not constitute a substitution of sorts? Thereby making the whole thing illegal for a PC anyway?
     
  13. redumpire

    redumpire FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,573
    Likes Received:
    2,715
    You were right Cas!

    If there is no nominated GK (i.e. a fully-kitted GK or what we normally refer to as a 'Kicking Back') on a team when a PC is awarded against them then the team must defend the corner with 5 (6 - edited to avoid any doubt - thanks to Zippy and Cas for pointing out my stupid, stupid mistake!) out-field players, any of whom may wear a face-mask but none of whom have the 'privileges' of a GK. They are not allowed to substitute a field-played for a GK/Kicking Back.
     
  14. zippytime

    zippytime FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2006
    Messages:
    3,220
    Likes Received:
    3
    That wold be 5 players wouldn't it Red????

    f not more than five defenders, including the goalkeeper if there is one, must be positioned behind the back-line with their sticks, hands and feet not touching the ground inside the field
    If the team defending a penalty corner has chosen to play only with field players, none of the defenders referred to above has goalkeeping privileges.
     
  15. Cascadia

    Cascadia FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    2,282
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think you mean 5! So, just to clarify, I am correct in thinking that they *may* wear facial protection, not that they *must* wear it (I mean the PC "Face-off" things, not a helmet, which I percieve to be completely out of the question).

    If I need to cite to justify my interpretation, which I anticipate I will have to, since there are so many different and not necessarily accurate interpretations floating around, would you recommend I just bring up the wording in 4.2? I would hate to be a rulebook-junkie, but I think the addition of a helmet (which is what some umpires would've had my 5th defender wear!) and having to get rid of it before she could play outside the 23, would create a disadvantage to my player, so I would definitely bring this up before I put my team out without a goalie.
     
  16. redumpire

    redumpire FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,573
    Likes Received:
    2,715
    Whoops! Yes. 5 players. My mistake. A slip of the finger. :sorry:

    Must get a new proof-reader - this one's worn out after 1,000+ posts!
     
  17. redumpire

    redumpire FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,573
    Likes Received:
    2,715
    And to answer your secondary question Cas I'd also quote the last part of guidance to rule 2.2 (highlighted below):

    2.2 Each team has a goalkeeper on the field or plays only with field players.

    Each team may play with:
    • a goalkeeper with goalkeeping privileges wearing full protective equipment comprised of at least headgear, leg guards and kickers and a different colour shirt ; or[*]a goalkeeper with goalkeeping privileges wearing only protective headgear and a different colour shirt ; or[*]only field players and no player with goalkeeping privileges and therefore no player wearing protective headgear or different colour shirt.


    This rule applies throughout the game and does not change after the award of a PC.
     
  18. Cascadia

    Cascadia FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    2,282
    Likes Received:
    0
    Awesome, that's much better. Thank you for helping me to clear that up!
     
  19. zippytime

    zippytime FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2006
    Messages:
    3,220
    Likes Received:
    3
    The bit I quoted before was from 13.3 f

    not more than five defenders, including the goalkeeper if there is one, must be positioned behind the back-line with their sticks, hands and feet not touching the ground inside the field
    If the team defending a penalty corner has chosen to play only with field players, none of the defenders referred to above has goalkeeping privileges.

    You could also quote this bit as it does help back the argument up
     
  20. keely

    keely FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2006
    Messages:
    10,403
    Likes Received:
    778
    Location:
    Calgary, Canada
    ...and then you could tell the umpire to call me. Not happy that anyone in the FHC system is so completely wrong on this! :no:
     

Share This Page