"Own Goal" rule clarification

Discussion in '2013 Official FIH Rules Book' started by david offord, Aug 15, 2012.

  1. Ridge

    Ridge FHF Star Player

    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    Messages:
    776
    Likes Received:
    41
    Location:
    Virginia, USA
    I have two games with the new rules under my belt. Not a single "own goal" yet....
     
  2. Kilmory

    Kilmory Administrator
    FHF Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Messages:
    5,117
    Likes Received:
    1,003
    Location:
    Wirral, UK
    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.
     
  3. wdyw

    wdyw FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,013
    Likes Received:
    96
    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.
     
  4. jayjay

    jayjay FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2010
    Messages:
    592
    Likes Received:
    190
    yes. that's exactly what DavidBurns and I have been saying.
     
  5. SeaBee

    SeaBee FHF Regular Player

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Messages:
    286
    Likes Received:
    10
    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.
     
  6. Ridge

    Ridge FHF Star Player

    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    Messages:
    776
    Likes Received:
    41
    Location:
    Virginia, USA
    You are correct, nothing has changed. But some would argue that allowing that to play is too much advantage.
     
  7. Hockeyfish

    Hockeyfish FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,174
    Likes Received:
    293
    Ridge I hope you're less willy-nilly with your whistle than you are with your tin opener...
     
  8. Ridge

    Ridge FHF Star Player

    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    Messages:
    776
    Likes Received:
    41
    Location:
    Virginia, USA
    He started it.... lol
     
  9. phi11ip

    phi11ip FHF Top Player

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    218
    Likes Received:
    63
    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...
     
  10. Corcaigh

    Corcaigh FHF Regular Player

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2011
    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    14
    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.

    Play on.
     
  11. Ridge

    Ridge FHF Star Player

    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    Messages:
    776
    Likes Received:
    41
    Location:
    Virginia, USA
    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
     
  12. keely

    keely FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2006
    Messages:
    10,403
    Likes Received:
    778
    Location:
    Calgary, Canada
    Agreed. Advantage or no benefit gained so play on - either way, it was the correct decision to continue without intervention.
     
  13. QUEENSLANDER

    QUEENSLANDER FHF Newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  14. keely

    keely FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2006
    Messages:
    10,403
    Likes Received:
    778
    Location:
    Calgary, Canada
    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.)
     
  15. Nij

    Nij FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    May 22, 2012
    Messages:
    1,676
    Likes Received:
    632
    Just what Keely said. Both of those are goals, no doubt whatsoever.
     
  16. redumpire

    redumpire FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,581
    Likes Received:
    2,716
    Yep, they're both goals. No doubt about either of them.
     
  17. aussieump

    aussieump FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,029
    Likes Received:
    104
    Location:
    Australia
    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.
     
  18. Trig

    Trig FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Messages:
    614
    Likes Received:
    152
    Location:
    Norfolk
    Queenslander,

    I'd be interested to hear the explanation of your two different answers!
     
  19. Goalie64

    Goalie64 FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    5,606
    Likes Received:
    271
    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)?
     

Share This Page