Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2013 Official FIH Rules Book' started by david offord, Aug 15, 2012.
I have two games with the new rules under my belt. Not a single "own goal" yet....
I play in the lower leagues. Turned up today - everyone knew of the new rules and we all survived without drama. No own goals were scored, and no one threw any ariels as they never do down here.
Think most people I spoke to thought the direct lift from FH was a sensible progression but noone thought the OG was a good rule.
At least 2 own goals in National League today. Wakey's keeper touched a ball hammered in from about the 23m line - tried to get out of the way, but got the slightest of touches.
yes. that's exactly what DavidBurns and I have been saying.
had two own goal situations today one of which was a definite own goal and the other we umpires thought there was a touch in the D but both teams denied there was any touch so bein a friendly game the umpires over ruled themselves an disallowed the goal however this would hav been a tough one in a league game. Admittedly in this situation I doubt the scoring team would have volunteered "no one touched it!".
We also had the debate with regard to the ball hit from outside the D, striking the defenders foot (no attackers near) before it would have gone into the goal if not touched (15m free hit) and agreed that this did not change the situation from before the rule change and therefore play on as the attacking team had not been penalised as the ball remained in play i.e the attacking team had not been disadvantaged by the ball striking the foot.
You are correct, nothing has changed. But some would argue that allowing that to play is too much advantage.
Ridge I hope you're less willy-nilly with your whistle than you are with your tin opener...
He started it.... lol
Firstly, I possibly had my first own goal on Saturday but I wasn't sure if it was touched. The other umpire didn't signal and only one player appealed so didn't give anything. Conclusion: New rule is great if it takes a big unidentified touch in the D and goes in but is a nightmare if someone just/maybe touches it slightly.
Secondly, it's time for a question:
Player wellies the ball into the D from outside - it's either going in or wide with no attackers around, but obviously neither will count.
Ball takes a massive deflection off of a foot and heads into the top corner.
Keeper dives and saves it (unbelievable!) from going in, and in doing so knocks it to a defender who can clear the ball with ease.
PC or no PC?
I think our upmire was right to give nothing, (mainly because he missed it,) because the ball was about to go off of the pitch with no attackers within playing distance. The foot then turned a no-chance ball into a really good 'shot' so they got a massive advantage out of it. Giving the PC would have given them a free chance at scoring with the deflection and then a bonus PC afterwards from a ball which would have resulted in nothing.
Question opened up to the panel...
No PC. From your description, if the ball had gone wide, rather than the GK making a save, you would have given a long hit. GK makes a save from the no-advantage deflection.
Giving the PC would be "dobule advantage". The hit from outside was a ball going over the end line which turned into a terrific shot. If that had gone in, a goal would have been called. Giving a PC because it didn't go in sounds like two bites at the cherry.
Sent from my BlackBerry 9810 using Tapatalk
Agreed. Advantage or no benefit gained so play on - either way, it was the correct decision to continue without intervention.
OWN GOAL?????? Had two different versions,,,From a pass back at the start of a game the CF passes it to a back INSIDE the circle who miss traps and the ball goes into the goal, DECISION?????. Same deal a player from team RED has a hit/push in, passes it back to a red player inside their circle,who miss traps and the ball goes into the goal [ NO PLAYER FROM THE OTHER SIDE TOUCHES THE BALL ] DECISION PLEASE My ASSOCIATION has had TWO different answers
Very clearly, without question, both are goals. Why? Simply read the rule:
Did the ball touch the stick or body of a defender inside the circle in both situations? Yes. Is there a requirement that an attacker touch the ball at some or any point in the play prior to that event? No. If "your association" did not answer "goal" in both scenarios, they got it wrong.
(You're new, so if you're wondering whether you should take my word for it - someone who is a complete stranger to you - feel free to check out my profile bio which lists my qualifications.)
Just what Keely said. Both of those are goals, no doubt whatsoever.
Yep, they're both goals. No doubt about either of them.
Queenslander Both goals very clear
I am sure HQ has sent out directives on the own goal rule.
Have received information from state body regarding the own goal rules and this is what we presented at all preseason umpire meeting across my home state.
This same briefing was used in at least three states recently.
In Qld I am sure Jan Hadfield is all over this aspect of the rules
If you would like to inbox me I can arrange for directvies and briefing paper for your association.
I'd be interested to hear the explanation of your two different answers!
QUEENSLANDER - welcome to the forum.
I'm stunned that anyone in an official association could think they are anything but (own) goals - especially given that the own goal has been in the rules for a good while now.
(If it's not too rude to ask - would it be possible to reduce the use of capital letters)?