Limiting drag flicks

Drag flicks. From an article on Field Hockey.com
“Guise-Brown has been training his PC skills since he was a young boy growing up on the grounds of the school where his father taught in Pietermaritzburg, South Africa, with the hockey pitch as his back garden. As a teenager and at university he used to flick for an hour a day most days.
Perhaps unsurprisingly the South African international is not in favour of suggestions by our readers that the height of drag flicks should be limited in line with regulations on hits at penalty corners. “I’d be a little bit upset if they did away with it,” said Guise-Brown. “I mean it is quite dangerous the whole nature of it but there’s lots of precautions that are taken.” “
.
,
I would be very surprised if an expert drag-flicker, who had devoted much of his training to perfecting this shot was in favour of the FIH doing away with it – but there has been no suggestion of them doing so, even if this expert is prepared to admit that “the nature of it is quite dangerous” (a fine bit of understatement) But then he went on to say that there are lots of precautions that are taken.
Are there? I can’t think of a single one other than not raising the ball at or above knee height into an out-running opponent within 5m, which is a watered down version (in fact a contradiction) of what is contained in Explanation of Application of Rule 9.9. which does NOT have a minimum height limit for ‘dangerous’ on a flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5m.
There has not been, as far as I am aware, any call made from any National Association to limit the height of the drag flick to the same height as the first hit shot during a penalty corner – 460mm.  On the contrary an opposite approach has been installed. The Royal Dutch Hockey Board have declared that legitimate evasive action does not apply to defenders on the goal-line during a penalty corner. An illegal declaration and instruction to umpires, that I am still waiting for the FIH to demand they withdraw
My suggestion(which I have been hammering on about for at about twenty years) is a “dangerous” height of above 120cms, that is 1200mm or 4′ (for senior men), a height well above what a ‘logging’ keeper can cover and still a difficult height for a defender to stop the ball. I don’t want a similar height limit as is imposed on the first hit shot because I do not want to see the return of the ‘logging’ goalkeeper and the ‘packing’ of the goal-line behind the goalkeeper, a sight common in the 1980’s.
My suggestion is not an easy option for defenders and it does not prevent dangerous deflections (no height limit will), but it does afford the defender opportunity to evade a direct shot, made at above sternum height at his position, without being penalised with a goal for doing so, and gives attackers (and umpires) a clear upper limit for “dangerous” for any ball propelled at high velocity at an opponent from any distance beyond 5m (which could reasonably be reduced to 2m).
My suggestions do not stop there. I want a ban on all raising of the ball with a hit to above shoulder height, to replace the (supposed) ban on the intentionally raised hit *(excepting a shot on goal from within the opponents circle). And a ban on the raising of the ball into the opponent’s circle with a hit (excepting a dribbling player who makes a dink hit into the circle while evading opponents and while so doing retains possession of the ball). And (belt and braces) a ban on any playing at or of the ball at above shoulder height in the opponent’s circle.
* (As they say “the goal is there to be shot at and is seven feet high” – (so that players are not endangered by the possibility of hitting their heads on it). It is interesting to note that in the far more robustly physical sport of ice-hockey the cross bar (which is heavily padded, as are the players) is about 4′ off the ice. Ice hockey players are sensible enough not to want slap hits being made (at 100mph+) at/past the heads of defenders – field hockey players apparently accept the risk of serious and long term injury for the sake of spectacular and exciting matches – or are those risks imposed on them?)
I think there could be general support for height limiting measures (how can we find out when the proposals are not put up for the consideration of National Associations by the FIH ?)
I am not impressed that a news article has been written airing the views of a leading exponent of the drag-flick as if he could possibly have been in favour of limiting the stroke in some way – of course he isn’t.
Should face-masks be obligatory during a penalty corner?
I think not, why not full helmets and throat protectors? Because aside from the always unpredictable deflection (a reason for optional face-masks) there is no good reason shots should be permitted to be made towards defenders at head or throat height. Shots not made at defenders do not need to be height limited – above or wide of is fine – those made at defenders must be height limited. But defenders (out-runners?) should be permitted to wear soft head protection (not just face protection) if they want to.
Contrary to popular belief among attacking players, it is not an offence for a defender to position between a shooter and the goal to defend the goal. Where else could a defender position to defend the goal?

Is it true that the main reasons that a replacement for the penalty corner still has not been devised by the powers that be, despite to my certain knowledge hockey participants having talked about doing so  for more than forty years; is that a small game replacement for the penalty corner (a power play in the 23m area) is likely to make an immediate drag-flick shot from the top of the circle impossible or redundant? We are said to be considering removing “the excitement and spectacle” (the danger) from the game. Makes one wonder how the game was played at all before the drag flick was invented in the late 1980’s early 1990’s? (when a flick shot was thought of as something that could not possibly travel with the velocity of an undercut hit). Now we know better than that but have done nothing with that information. Hockey usually flits from one extreme to another and thinks that normal. When the penalty corner was introduced all eleven defenders lined up behind the baseline and when the ball was inserted the striker was permitted to make a fly hit at it, without attempting to stop or otherwise control it, and there was no height limit at all imposed on any shot towards the goal.  We were taken from that extreme, to the ball being controlled out side the circle before it could be taken back into the circle to make a hit shot, which is strictly height limited (to 480mm – 18″).  It was inevitable that this height restriction would be circumvented, and just as inevitable that the FIH have done nothing at all (in more than thirty years) to control the degree of circumvention of a safety Rule.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: