Management & Communication PC or PS referral

Discussion in 'Outdoor Umpiring Questions & General Chat' started by Hockeyfish, Sep 18, 2017.

  1. Hockeyfish

    Hockeyfish FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,174
    Likes Received:
    293
    One for the Video Umpire geeks!

    I had an incident at the weekend in a game which, during coaching afterwards, it became apparent that I should have given a PS rather than a PC. Situation was a goalkeeper went to ground to his left, swept at the ball with his stick and missed, following through into the attacker's stick. Without that happening, the attacker may have had a shot at goal, despite one defender nearby and another on the goal line. Teams were both national league.

    At the time, I judged the stick tackle not intentional (which the players were OK with), and didn't judge the foul had prevented the probable scoring of a goal. However, during post match debrief, in the opinion of my colleague and coach (and coaches' coach too - I'll let them choose if they want to identify themselves!), the tackle did indeed prevent the probable scoring of a goal.

    To be clear: This post isn't about the ins and outs of what constitutes the probable scoring of a goal. This is about whether a VU would / could overrule the opinion of the on-field umpire about that question in a review.

    If that incident had been in a tournament with video referral, and the attacking team had chosen to refer it, I would have already given my original decision of PC, prompting the referral request. Given that the award of a PS on the basis of preventing the probable scoring of a goal is a matter of opinion rather than fact (i.e. it's not "did it hit the foot or not?", it's "do you think that stopped a probable goal?"), how likely is it that a video referral would be successful? Does it depend on the tournament rules/guidance?
     
  2. BlindGoalie613

    BlindGoalie613 FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2014
    Messages:
    1,914
    Likes Received:
    656
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    Stick/s:
    Beikou Drag 90
  3. Diligent

    Diligent FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2007
    Messages:
    4,226
    Likes Received:
    956
    Location:
    Hampshire (South Coast of England)
    For me "may have had a shot at goal" isn't enough to make it 'probable', especially with defender(s) placed to save. It needs to have the ball travelling into the goal mouth, which a defender saves in a way they "must not". So not a 12.4a PS.

    That said, going over the ball and clacking the stick of an attacker about to shoot is very convenient, too convenient, and quite possibly a desperate last-ditch act. Not being there, we can't know how strong that 'unintentional' feeling was. But I'd say, from the feedback you had, that's the area to re-think. Maybe a 12.4b PS?
     
  4. Hockeyfish

    Hockeyfish FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,174
    Likes Received:
    293
    Thanks Diligent. As I said n the OP, this discussion is about the VU ability/likelihood of overruling an infield umpire opinion.

    That said, the post match discussion included a specific rejection that ball already travelling towards goal is a pre-requisite for prevention of a probable goal. Simply denial of a clear shot is enough. If I see a national league player rounding a goalkeeper, I'm thinking "he'll probably score here".


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  5. peterwins

    peterwins FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2007
    Messages:
    761
    Likes Received:
    150
    While I agree with @Diligent's analysis, we still need to address the question of whether video review can rule or overrule on intent of the foul or probability of a goal being scored. I have limited experience with video review, (available at some college games in USA), but not enough to give a definitive answer to this.

    In fact, I had an experience on Friday that could have led to a similar video review issue. Attacker makes pass which bounced off defender's foot in D. I play on and shout that as ball goes to forward in front of goal with GK out of position. Forward smashes it wide of post. Cue coach to shout about the PC I had missed. If the attack had been able to ask for a video review, should I have brushed it off, saying I had played advantage or had it reviewed? If reviewed, would a PC be awarded for the foot or turned down because I had played advantage? What if I had not verbalized the advantage? Thanks
     
  6. The chief

    The chief FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2013
    Messages:
    638
    Likes Received:
    369
    Having seen a few referrals on the TV, I can't say that a PC wouldn't have been awarded (in @peterwins example) as there seems to be a different set of rules for video referrals than the rules which we use week in week out, however what I can say is that I think you got it right. You played advantage, the attack were not disadvantaged, and the coach is clutching at straws.
     
    peterwins likes this.
  7. Gingerbread

    Gingerbread FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,801
    Likes Received:
    556
    In short: no (anecdotally)

    Whenever I've seen video replays, when it's a matter of umpire interpretation of a rule, they do not overrule it, only if they made a mistake. Deliberate/accidental foot for example. If you thought it wasn't a probable goal then a VU wouldn't change that, but if you thought a shot was missing the goal but they reviewed querying if the ball was going in or not it might be. There was one at the Olympics in London I saw where a Chinese player against the US cleared the ball in the D with the back of her stick, umpire called PS for deliberate foul, Chinese reviewed and it was basically over in 30 seconds - confirmed it was back stick and PS, there was no argument from VU as to player intent
     
    peterwins likes this.
  8. Gingerbread

    Gingerbread FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,801
    Likes Received:
    556
    Advantage played, don't get 2 goes at it. VU on the basis umpire MISSED the foot, yes, but on the basis he saw it and played advantage and attacker messed up, tough
     
    peterwins likes this.
  9. Hockeyfish

    Hockeyfish FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,174
    Likes Received:
    293
    Ask him what he would have said if you'd blown for PC just before his forward took the shot at goal with the GK out of position. You can either have a PC then, or we play on. There's no option to let him shoot then give him a second go!
     
    peterwins likes this.
  10. Folmer

    Folmer FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    2,489
    Likes Received:
    578
    If it's a matter of interpretation the VU will not overturn the decision. I recall several instances where the umpire repeatedly warns the requester that it is unwise to refer interpretation. They always lost their referral.
     
    peterwins likes this.
  11. Porter

    Porter FHF Top Player

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2008
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    81
    @Folmer, I do not think that that is completely correct. It is true that referrals relating to matters of interpretation are less likely to be successful, however if the on-pitch umpire has clearly made a mistake (i.e. the VU considers that the decision/non-decision was close to 100% wrong) then the advice and recommendation would be to overturn it. The aim is to reach the correct match decision, not to stand by an interpretation that was clearly incorrect.
     
  12. Trig

    Trig FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Messages:
    619
    Likes Received:
    153
    Location:
    Norfolk
    Before I get to the Video bit, yes it was a stroke! ;)

    And yes, I think a Video Umpire could and would be able to give the stroke for this one.
     
  13. Gingerbread

    Gingerbread FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,801
    Likes Received:
    556
    I think the general principle is where the umpire makes the call e.g. deliberate vs accident, it's not going to be overruled so if a PS is awarded for a deliberate foul, unless they missed something in the build up (like in rugby: "do you see any reason not to give the try"), they won't change that interpretation to be a PC.

    If they got the interpretation of the rule wrong then yes it could be but I can't think of many scenarios where that would apply
     
  14. redumpire

    redumpire FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,678
    Likes Received:
    2,782
  15. Trig

    Trig FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Messages:
    619
    Likes Received:
    153
    Location:
    Norfolk
    Sounds like sour grapes to me!!

    Germans bad losers, never!!
     
  16. Folmer

    Folmer FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    2,489
    Likes Received:
    578
    Latest I heard was that they cancelled the appeal. They agreed that BVB was the better team and that it was out of proportion to replay the entire match, even though they still think the goal should not have been awarded. [/offtopic]

    @Porter, yes it can happen with a clear misinterpretation or using the wrong rule, like you say: we all want the correct decision made. But when interpreting intent, they will not overrule.
     
  17. Pippinn

    Pippinn FHF Regular Player

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2017
    Messages:
    102
    Likes Received:
    15
    Clear attempted shot at goal, the fact they missed is their problem not yours. If you had blown (perhaps a little late) and that player "scored" after the whistle they'd have complained about a lack of advantage.

    Sent from my Vodafone Smart ultra 6 using Tapatalk
     

Share This Page