obstruction Using LHP: more " sensible" discussion. :)

Discussion in 'PS and Goalkeeping' started by deegum, Mar 18, 2008.

  1. deegum

    deegum FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    2,370
    Likes Received:
    33
    The other version of this wasn't going anywhere.except off topic
    And my mathematics didn't impress :eek:

    So lets start again without " ball under body" part of the discussion.


    Till the 2007 rule book the LHP was merely a " rebound/deflection" tool.
    Any other use was an offence, at times an obstruction.

    The rules have changed.
    Perhaps we need to review our opinions on some circumstances that arise.
    We need to be sure we aren't carrying over some judgments arising from the previous rules.


    Now the LHP is used, like a stick, to legally propel and control the ball- with limitations, just as there are limitations on using the stick.

    But they can have their stick/ body/LHP in a position, prior to the tackle which prevents direct access.

    The hand is part of the body.....so there is an obligation to get into position to get the ball without prior LHP contact where the goalie is involved

    Take a non extreme example.

    Goalie dives, stops ball with LHP.
    Attacker not within playing range.
    no other defender in good position.
    GK puts his LHP at rest against the ball,- lets say more or less vertically -to avoid some " special" cases- between approaching attacker and ball
    Like a field player in possession he has no obligation to move.
    He can wait till a defender comes and sweep the ball to him, or let him pick it off the LHP- or perhaps some GKs will develop the skill of dribbling the ball with the LHP.

    " Accidentally" push the ball into the attacker's feet? Perish the thought!!! :p

    When does obstruction occur if ever?
    Is there anything illegal about any of this?
    Does the angle of the LHP to the ground- and therefore the amount of " overhang" on the ball make a difference?


    The point made by Keely in the other topic of ( excessive?) downward pressure lhp/ball making access unreasonably difficult can perhaps justify a penalty ....... a commonsense application of the rules where that occurs.
    But it isn't a " given".

    (what is the difference between stick/LHP duel and a stick/ stick duel over a stationary ball?)
     
  2. 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
    deegum i cant really see this discussion going anywhere because once the attacker tries to retrieve the ball then the goalkeeper has to allow the attacker to make the 'tackle' without his glove impeding the stick of the attacker. if no attacker is around to do it then its kind of pointless.

    i think its time to stop flogging a dead horse
     
  3. keely

    keely FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2006
    Messages:
    10,403
    Likes Received:
    778
    Location:
    Calgary, Canada
    This is simply a cross-post and should be locked.
     
  4. Diligent

    Diligent FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2007
    Messages:
    4,193
    Likes Received:
    929
    Location:
    Hampshire (South Coast of England)
    Sin Bin? >:
     
  5. deegum

    deegum FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    2,370
    Likes Received:
    33
    Why? His pad is entitled to be there is it not?
    Relevant rule?
    I've quoted what I think are the relevant ones

    Anyway,...
    I'll leave it.
    Mystified as I am and remain.

    What's a cross post? Is that where Keely gets cross because she's annoyed that it has been discussed to her satisfaction previously? :eek:

    Incidentally I changed the scenario slightly to the LHP NOT COVERING THE BALL
     
  6. redumpire

    redumpire FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,585
    Likes Received:
    2,718
    No, it's a post where someone doesn't like the unanimous answer they get to a question they've posed, so they address the issue in a slightly different way and post it under a new heading hoping to get a different answer.

    The scenario you describe is, admittedly, slightly different to the original one; so for the sake of completeness:

    I agree with you that the GK could, if s/he so wished, place his/her hand in front of the ball before an attacker got within playing distance, and that the onus would then be on the attacker to get into a sensible position from which to try to take the ball. However, given the not inconsiderable size of the GK's body + protective gear and the proximity of the attacking player, the GK would have to work very hard not to obstruct the attacker by moving any part of his/her body or stick into a position that became obstruction when the attacker was within playing distance.

    Having said all of that, surely the GK would want to get the ball out of the circle and away from the oncoming attacker ASAP rather than playing smart-ar*ed hockey and hoping that the umpire has an encyclopaedic knowledge of the rules?
     
  7. keely

    keely FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2006
    Messages:
    10,403
    Likes Received:
    778
    Location:
    Calgary, Canada
    Which you easily could have done in the original thread dealing with this topic. There was absolutely no need to start a new thread, and the only reason you did was to try to get different responses than those you didn't like the first time. It's poor netiquette (technically multiposting, not cross-posting) and you're just being rude with that comment.
     
  8. Magpie

    Magpie Administrator
    FHF Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2006
    Messages:
    4,718
    Likes Received:
    27
    Location:
    Purga, QLD
    As long as this dies a natural death there is no need to move it to the Sin Bin, I guess this could be taken as a warning......
     
  9. deegum

    deegum FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    2,370
    Likes Received:
    33
    I apologise to Keely for any rudeness.

    No rudeness or hostility was intended in my remark

    Certainly I felt ok about a little dig/tease after she suggested that the post, in which I saw no harm, be locked.

    Obviously, I was wrong.
     

Share This Page