Both the Rule and the Rule interpretation (which no longer exists as a separate section in the rule-book having been deleted in 2004) used at one time to give instruction about what a player who had received the ball should do once it was within his control.
Now we have :-
“A stationary player receiving the ball is permitted to face in any direction.
“A player with the ball is permitted to move off with it in any direction .”….
(the part of the Rule that is recalled by umpires and how application of the Obstruction Rule is coached).
But then that second Rule sentence continues:-
“…….except bodily into an opponent or into a position between the ball and an opponent who is within playing distance of the ball and attempting to play it“.
(Umpires also recall that a player who claims to be obstructed must be attempting to play at the ball – but they don’t in general know what a tackle attempt looks like or that the illegal prevention of a tackle attempt is obstruction)
“A player who runs in front of or blocks an opponent to stop them legitimately playing or attempting to play the ball is obstructing (this is third party or shadow obstruction).“
The part in parenthesis (this is third party or shadow obstruction) is taken to mean that this clause applies only to third party obstruction, but if it was amended (as Rule 9.8. was amended) with the substitution of “this may also be” for “is” a more accurate description of the Rule is reached without in any way changing the interpretation of it and this might help rto achieve correct interpretation of the actions of players who obstruct an opponent. .
Suggestion. A player who runs in front of or blocks an opponent to stop them legitimately playing or attempting to play the ball is obstructing (this may also be third party or shadow obstruction)
In the video the player in white (Poland) correctly protests to the umpire that there has been an obstruction by the Indian player in possession of the ball – the umpire shrugs and smiles, and play continues from the sideline. This inability on the part of umpires to recognize obstructive offences, and subsequent inaction when it occurs, is widespread.
Rules of Hockey 
Leave a Reply