Rules of Hockey

Rules of Hockey
Raising the ball towards an opponent.

A dangerously played ball call is more likely to be made against a defender than against an attacker.

I had previously though that the last mention from an umpire of the nonsense about a shot at goal being impossible to consider dangerous play was uttered during the China v Spain match in the Women’s 2010 World Cup. But here we are in the Semi-Final of the Men’s World Cup England v Netherlands in 2014 – and it is trotted out again. Was it one of the commentators who declared it was a shot at goal so could not be dangerous? The video umpire appears to go along with that view

The commentators also get wrong the matter of knee height and dangerous play (which applies only to a ball raised at an out-running defender during a penalty corner). The height restriction on a first hit shot during a penalty corner is about compliance with the limit for a goal to be scored, not about dangerous play.

If that edge hit was not intended as a shot at the goal, it should have been penalised as an intentionally raised hit, but the intent of the shooter would have required mind reading – what looks to me to be a miss-hit was assumed to be a shot at the goal because it was clearly not a pass across the face of goal (which could not have been legally raised with a hit stroke) .

This incident here was anyway clearly a ball raised into an opponent within 5m and therefore dangerous play, by the attacker – not a complicated concept – but one which is obviously not understood by officials at FIH level. Words apparently have a different meaning at that level.

I had to laugh when I heard the commentators talking of the history of the game. Some knowledge of Rule history might given them an understanding of the state of the current Rules and how bizarre the application of the Rules has become in some important areas.

Thank goodness that anything that happened eight years ago, and was invented twelve years ago in an umpire briefing, is now considered pre-history and can (as it should) be discarded. Easy to do, it has never been mentioned in any official document as a Rule – because it isn’t

The notion that a ball raised towards an opponent within 5m (who is not an out-runner at a penalty corner) has to be at knee high or above to be considered dangerous play is erroneous.

The applicable clauses for open play are contained in the Explanation of Application of Rule 9.9. It’s not entirely clear (because the strokes mentioned in Rule 9.9. are for some unknown reason limited to flicks and scoops. The penalty corner Rule 13.3.m also mentions raised hits and (intentional?) deflections and it is proper that it should do so).  I don’t think knee height applies to any propelling of the ball towards an opponent after the initial shot has been taken during a penalty corner.

There is no reference to height in the Explanation to Rule 9.9., any raising of the ball towards an opponent within 5m may therefore be considered to be a dangerous play offence.

The UMB contradicts the Rule in this regard (using half-shin pad height) so the advice in the UMB – which is not Rule – should be disregarded.

Again, the mistaken idea that a ball raised towards an opponent within 5m has to be above knee height to be dangerous play. Nothing else explains the difference in the decisions made in these two incidents.

The video referral for the first incident was for a dangerous shot on goal, which I hope those who believe there is no such thing will take note of.

The second incident raised an interesting question. What does an umpire do if both teams simultaneously request video referral citing different offences? I suppose, following Tournament Regulations, if the requests are made in the correct way and within 20 seconds of the incident which is being referred, the umpire must advance both questions to the video umpire. Players possibly believe that such simultaneous requests are not allowed, but it is only a video referral about a decision from a prior video referral that is not permitted. I see no reason that both sides should not ask for referral for different offences at the same time, even if they are committed within the scope of a single action. In this case two very different questions, 1)Was the ball raised into the defender dangerous play?  2) Did the defender commit a ball-body contact offence ?

You don’t ask, you don’t get.
Maybe the Dutch players know the Rules better than the English players do. But again A dangerously played ball call is more likely to be made against a defender than against an attacker and the injustices that goalkeepers have to put up with in this regard haven’t been touched upon in the above selection of incidents from International level matches in important tournaments (World Cup and Olympic Games).

Rules of Hockey.

The permit to play the ball at above shoulder height opened a flood-gate of other Rule abuse because the only restriction was (is)  that players should not play or play at the ball in a dangerous way – and a dangerous way is left to the judgement of umpires, who have already been advised to “forget lifted” when the ball is raised with a hit. That they are also told to “think danger” (what’s danger?) (but not advised to consider disadvantage to opponents following an illegal action) is something of a joke.

The hit raised into the circle by the BEL attacker was a foul (it was clearly intentionally raised), as was the contest for the falling ball by the second BEL player who was not in a position to be the initial receiver at the time the ball was raised (the goalkeeper was).

In the next incident shown in the clip the attacker passes and raises the ball across the face of the goal with a reverse edge hit – that is not a shot at the goal – so an illegal hit.

http://fieldhockey.com/index.php/comments/50068-world-hockey-aim-to-tackle-reverse-hit-dangers

England Hockey also misses the point.

http://fieldhockey.com/index.php/comments/50139-hockey-clubs-need-to-report-all-injuries-and-concussion

http://fieldhockey.com/index.php/comments/50138-leading-hockey-coach-backs-reverse-stick-debate-at-junior-level

Apparently common sense has to be the result of professionally collected data about injuries, and comment about potential danger has to be from “credible” sources (see article) to be accepted. Is there someone spreading false reports of injuries sustained during hockey matches? I very much doubt it, if anything injuries are generally under reported.

I have been suggesting for years a height limit on any ball propelled towards another player from beyond 5m, (there being Rule in place to cover the ball raised towards an opponent within 5m – even if that is poorly applied at present) as a means of determining that a ball is dangerously played.

Incidents of dangerous play cannot be determined simply by counting the number of reported injuries that result from it, because legitimate evasive action is already supposed to define a dangerously played ball (but in practice doesn’t). If dangerous play that does not result in injury ‘does not count’ as dangerous, then we are miscounting and underestimating the problem.

What actually happens is quite different.  If an ‘on target’ high shot at the goal, which is also made towards a defender, is successfully evaded, a goal award is the usual outcome. If a player attempting to evade such a ball is hit with it then a penalty stroke award is considered normal. In other words attackers are not penalised for playing the ball in a dangerous way at an opponent but rewarded for doing so and therefore encouraged to do so.

There is no deterrent whatsoever against raising the ball at throat or head height towards a defender when shooting at the goal from beyond 5m. It does not matter which stroke is used, be it a drag-flick or an edge-hit.

It follows that defenders are being forced to defend against shots in competitive matches that they would always evade in practice situations (because of the high risk of injury). The choice, if it can be called that, is to risk injury by attempting to stop a high ball propelled at the throat or head or to ‘give away’ a goal. Players (shortsightedly) often ‘sacrifice’ themselves for the team, and the team (and the club) are then without their services while they recover from injury (often for many weeks).

A sternum level high limit (120cms or 4′) would allow defenders to evade the very dangerously played high ball without giving away a goal and would also greatly reduce the risk of severe (life threatening) injury which is the potential result of permitting above sternum height shots to be made towards opposing defenders. Crucially attackers would then stop making such shots, just as they stopped ‘roofing’ the first hit shot made during a penalty corner after the introduction of the backboard height limit on such shots.

There is no need to height limit any shot that is not made towards (at) another player, so shots made at above head height or wide of opponents, would not be effected by the proposed height limit, just as balls raised above knee height with a flick within 5m of outrunning opponents during a penalty corner are not considered dangerously played if they are not directed towards an outrunning opponent

A120cm height limit is easy and cheap to mark on a goal by stretching an elasticated tape from one post to another around the back of the goal. This is also easy to adjust for women’s hockey or for juniors where lower heights (110cms and 100cms respectively) may be considered more suitable.

It is of course necessary to track injuries and record how they are caused, but injuries are only a very small (but visible and stressful) part of the complete “dangerously played ball” scenario.

Injuries arise because the dangerously played ball is not well Ruled for and the Rules we have are not well applied. I have a video clip of a player, while trying to stop the ball with his stick, being hit on the collar bone with drag-flick shots and being penalised with a penalty stroke, and another of a shot, taken from within 5m, deflecting into the goal off a defenders collar bone into the goal, while he was trying to evade the ball, and a goal being awarded – this should not be happening.

The so called ‘gladiator effect’ is not more likely to encourage defenders in competitive matches to try stop the ball with the stick rather than duck, they are already doing that. It is in my view more likely to encourage attackers to believe that they need not concern themselves with injury to ‘protected’ opponents, and worse, for umpires to accept that view.

We already have attackers shooting at the goal when there are defenders positioned between them and the goal as if defenders so positioned in John Gawley’s words (2001 Umpire Coaching document entitled The Lifted Ball) aggregated to themselves to position of goalkeeper without the privileges (legal use of body) afforded to goalkeepers. He suggested that such defenders could be shot at as if they were fully protected goalkeepers (an aberration in an otherwise fairly sensible set of recommendations concerning the lifted ball). That attitude can never be accepted – not if incidents of injury are a concern and we seek to reduce or even eliminate them.

My clip (the second one below)  is a small part of the FIH video issued in 2017 after the Rio Olympics.

I watched the FIH Umpire Briefing video, featuring the Umpire Managers, prior to the 2016 Olympics (much of which is repeated in the 2017 version)

and was not surprised that the umpiring in Rio, taken as a whole, was poorer than any I had seen in any FIH Tournament prior to that date. What is hoped for and intended does not automatically become common practice.

In this short clip (below) the men’s umpire manager Craig Gribble, begins by pointing out that a shot on goal that endangers players from both sides is dangerous play (that has now been changed, a same team player cannot now be endangered, a Rule amendment which Sam Ward might have a few words to say about) and additional video adds that a shot wide of the goal that endangers defenders is also dangerous play – so far so good.

He then goes on to say “Of course a defender choosing to stand on the line and occupying an area which is in fact properly the goalie’s domain could not expect the same degree of protection“” That is a nonsense which he then links with a true statement to the effect that if a defender on the line is struck with the ball (and prevents a goal) then a penalty stroke COULD be the correct decision (unfair advantage gained).

Why “Of course” No explanation is offered. Why would a defender in any position, including on the goal-line, not be as protected by Rule as any other player defending anywhere on the pitch would be? I suggest he offered no explanation because he could not do so. His statement is pure invention which unfortunately has become a meme of umpiring – I wonder how that happened?

This kind of “Of course” thinking is so ‘fuzzy’ and vague, and contrary to the supposed emphasis on player safety that is obvious that this high level umpiring official does not understand what is meant by the term “a dangerously played ball”. A dangerously played ball is not something that is created by the player endangered by it, but a dangerous action an endangered player responds to.

Yes a defender struck with the ball who prevents a goal being scored can be penalised with a penalty stroke, provided the shot is not made in a dangerous way i.e. in a way that endangers any defender or causes him or her to take or try to take, legitimate evasive action (evasion to avoid injury) – as demonstrated in the initial part of the clip.

There is no Rule declaring the goal-line to be the exclusive domain of the goalkeeper and no Rule forbidding a defender to defend the goal from a position on the goal-line. That might be the case in some circumstances if a Goal Zone was introduced, but no such thing has happened.

The principle of acceptance of risk is often trotted out at this juncture by those who advocate penalising defenders for defending, but it needs to be realized that in no sport (or any other area) does this principle apply if a Rule of the game has been breached (or a relevant Law or Regulation contravened) in the course of endangering or injuring the person who it is claimed accepted risk.

Acceptance of risk is acceptance of the risk of injury or actual injury due to an accidental action or what is termed “an Act of God”, something beyond human control. One player propelling the ball in a reckless and dangerous but intentional way towards another is not an accidental action or something beyond human control, so endangerment or injury from this kind of thing is not an acceptable risk, it’s an opposition offence, a foul.

It is of course extremely worrying that this FIH Official charged with Umpire Briefing at the highest level seems to believe that defenders have no right to defend on the goal-line and little? (but anyway an undefined) degree of protection from opponents who propel the ball at them in what would in other circumstances (for example not a shot at the goal) always be considered a dangerous way.

He comes close to saying that a shot at the goal against defenders on the goal-line cannot be considered to be dangerous play. If he believes that then he should not be assessing the performance of umpires during FIH Tournaments or be influencing their umpiring, because those views are not Rule compliant. How on earth did he get appointed to the position of Umpire Manager? Are the views of those considered for such appointments not discovered during interview? Who appointed him? Could it have been the FIH Umpiring Committee?

The Penalty Corner Rules 13.3. l and 13.3.m between them make clear that no shot at the goal should be made in a dangerous way. If a shot against penalty corner defenders (who are frequently positioned on the goal-line) could not be considered dangerous play, then there would be no need for Rule 13.3.m. it would comprise redundant and meaningless statements : perhaps it does.

There is no reason to suppose that actions that are considered dangerous propelling of the ball during a penalty corner should not also be considered dangerous in open play.

Roger Webb (formerly Secretary of the FIH Rules Committee) pointed out to me some years ago that the backboard height limit, where the ball has to cross the goal-line from a first hit shot for a goal to be scored, is part of the conditions for the scoring of a goal, it is not part of the dangerously played ball Rules (strange as that might seem because a ball hit into an out-runner, who is within 5m, at above knee height, will be considered to be dangerous play), so effectively a dangerously played ball is dangerous in much the same way during open play as it is during a penalty corner – and that is as it should be.

A dangerously played ball is however not exactly the same during a penalty corner as it is in open play. Due to the shenanigans of the South Korean out-runners during penalty corners in a pre-Olympic Tournament match against Pakistan in 2004. As a knee jerk reaction change to Rule the FIH RC decided that it would henceforth be mandatory that an out-runner, even within 5m, hit below the knee with a first shot would be penalised with another penalty corner. This is an aberration and a contradiction of what is considered dangerous propelling of the ball in open play – where there is no minimum height mentioned . In open play raising the ball towards an opponent with 5m is a prohibited action (although only scoops and flicks are mentioned, common sense and safety demands the inclusion of raised hits and intentional deflections). Therefore the dangerously played ball Rule is more severe in open play than it is during a first shot at goal during a penalty corner – second and subsequent hit shots and and all shots using other strokes during a penalty corner, are (in the absence of any other instruction), subject to the same Rules that apply in open play.

The lack of height control of the drag flick compared with a first hit stroke is confusing because 13.3.m states in effect that no flick or scoop may be made in a dangerous way at any time during a penalty corner – so not even as a first shot that is raised with a flick into an opponent within 5m at below knee height ???  One for the wordsmiths to sort out.

Rule 13.3.l regulates the first hit shot. Rule 13.3.m regulates all shots made with all other strokes and also with subsequent hit shots. (any hit shot made after a first hit shot). Participants are expected to know the Rules and to play to them, but also to gloss over these strange ambiguities, ignore them and pretend that they do not exist.

https://martinzigzag.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/questions-from-a-new-umpire.pdf

The above link to the above extraordinary Internet hockey forum thread from 2014 appeared on my Word Press stats page on Friday 18th October 2019. It is headed with the following statement (coloured text), which appears to come from ritualhockey .com

Initial post 28th April 2014 leading to an extraordinary statement from Gingerbread on the 30th. Extraordinary because it is true — there is no generally observed Rule about a dangerously played ball.

“The problem is you can never have a ‘’catch-all’’ guide to “danger / no danger on the line” when there is nothing to support it in any written rule, interpretation or edict – you have to look at practice and advice from your peers and player expectation or your local organisation”

What is even more extraordinary is that not only is this situation accepted it appears to have been deliberately set up, despite the clearly stated rules, principles and aims published by the FIH Executive Board, with regard to the Rules of Hockey and to player safety.

The opening post on the topic thread from a contributor with the tag Pharoah was as follows:-

Higuys

I’ve decided to get my Level 1 Badge here in Qld so I can get a bit more confidence in umpiring. I have a few questions which I was hoping the more experienced umpires on this forum could answer – I have read the rules but wanted to ask anyway so please ‘be gentle’.

Questions/clarifications:

1. within the 23m line, balls cannot be hit directly into the circle unless they go Sm. However free hits outside the 23m line (ie. even just 20cm past the 23m line) can be hit directly into the circle right? (I see this happen all the time where attackers are hesitant to shoot directly into the circle from just past the 23m line)

2. You CAN raise the ball into the D, as long as its not dangerous right?

3. A shot at goal (hit) that is rising and ends up in the top right/left comer of the goal should be disallowed right? This is diff to a raised/flicked ball.

4. Hockey sometimes moves at terrific speed, esp within the D – what do you do if (heaven forbid) you are unsighted and there is a foul which stops the game?

5. An attacker has had a shot on goal and the goalie has dived on the ball to stop it…is obviously trying to get up but the ball is being pushed below him by everyone fighting for the ball — PC right? He is unintentionally obstructing the ball plus to avoid injury I think.

Thanks all – if I have any more niggling questions, I’ll post them here for advice, etc.

Two of Pharoah’s statements surprised me. The first was that he has read the Rules, because the first four of his five questions can be answered by obtaining a common sense understanding of the published FIH Rules of Hockey by reading them, and the second, that he was apparently umpiring competitive matches without having previously obtained his Level One Badge. That is a safety issue.

But before looking in more detail at Pharoah’s questions, a look at what Gingerbread wrote:-

“The problem is you can never have a ‘’catch-all’’ guide to “danger / no danger on the line” when there is nothing to support it in any written rule, interpretation or edict – you have to look at practice and advice from your peers and player expectation or your local organisation”

Is this true? “you can never have a ‘’catch-all’’ guide to “danger / no danger on the line” That is not entirely true because the Royal Dutch Hockey Federation have issued an edict via letter to umpires in the Netherlands instructing them that legitimate evasive action does not apply to defenders on the goal-line during a penalty corner.

Koninklijke Nederlandse Hockey Bond

https://www.knhb.nl/

AGREEMENTS CLUB SAFETY ARRANGEMENTS (FIELD) SEASON 2018 - 2019 

AFSPRAKEN CLUBSCHEIDSRECHTERS (VELD) SEIZOEN 2018 – 2019

Wees Alert!

– Ook een schot op doel kan gevaarlijk zijn. Het schot op doel is gevaarlijk wanneer spelers een terecht ontwijkende beweging maken (dit geldt niet voor de lijnstopper bij een strafcorner-situatie);

Obviously inaccurately translated by Google Translate below, but the message is clear enough for comprehension.

— A shot on target can also be dangerous-

The shot on target is dangerous when players make a rightly evasive move
(this does not apply to the line stopper in a penalty corner situation).

Naturally this instruction has ‘evolved’ or has been ‘developed’ and is often also applied in open play, and there is now a situation where the bizarre and utterly wrong “An on target shot at goal cannot be considered to be dangerous play” which was invented during the 2008 Beijing Olympics (but has never been an FIH approved Rule), seems to have again become the norm in Dutch hockey (and elsewhere too).
I wrote to the FIH about this edict in May 2019 and was informed that the KNHB did not have the approval of the FIH and Executive or of the FIH Hockey Rules Committee to issue it and that they, the FIH, would look into the matter. The FIH should reprimand the KNHB and instruct them to withdraw this evasive action edict, which is of course illegal, but as far as I can see from watching Dutch League Hockey, the FIH have not done so. The KNHB web-site is naturally written in Dutch, which I cannot read, so it is difficult for me to check if the edict has been withdrawn. Maybe a Dutch reader, perhaps an umpire, can help me out?

The machinations of the KNHB aside, what is the Rule situation regarding a dangerously played ball, particularly in regard to a shot at the goal?
There are in fact two Rule ‘catch-alls’ to guide ‘dangerous’ decisions in open play. one can be found in the Explanation of Application given with Rule 9.9. the Rule concerning the intentionally raised hit.

Players are permitted to raise the ball with a flick or scoop provided it is not dangerous. A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous.

That’s a severe Rule, it prohibits all raising of the ball towards an opponent within 5m with a flick or scoop, there is no mention of height or velocity. The Rule does not mention raised hits (and is therefore badly written) but as the clause is contained in the Explanation of Application of the Rule concerning an intentionally raised hit, it seems common sense to include in the prohibition hits and intentional deflections which raise the ball towards opponents who are within 5m. Not to do so would be absurd.

The second guide is ‘legitimate evasive action’. A ball played in a way that causes an opponent to take legitimate evasive action is dangerous. There is no distance limitation on legitimate evasive action, but it requires a subjective judgement from an umpire. Was the evasion legitimate? So it is necessary to ask “What does ‘legitimate’ mean?” Trying to avoid being hit with the ball can never be considered to be an illegal action so we can dispense with legitimate meaning legal (as it does in other Rules such as the Obstruction Rule). The next most obvious choice of meaning is ‘genuine’ i.e. not false or acted. So a genuine fear that he will be injured if hit with the ball indicates legitimate evasive action in any particular incident of a ball raised towards an player by an opponent. How does an umpire gauge the genuine fear of injury in a player when the ball is raised at that player? Well, in the absence of other objective criteria, height and ball velocity might give an umpire a clue.

Do umpires make these judgements? Generally no. They usually follow quite bizarre umpiring practice and weird player expectation along the lines of “Asking for it” or “acceptance of risk” from defenders. Some see defensive positioning as evidence of an intent to use the body to stop the ball. The acceptance of risk argument has even been used by FIH Officials but is it obviously a nonsense. No player in any sport can be obliged to accept any risks created by the deliberate illegal (contrary to Rule) actions of opponents, acceptance of risk from a legal standpoint can only be applied to accidental actions. Propelling the ball with a flick at high velocity towards the head of a defender on the post during a penalty corner, especially in high level games where a high level of skill may be expected from all the participants, cannot be assumed to be accidental, especially when it happens so often and so consistently.

There is, no guidance on height or velocity in rule 9.8 or 9.9, it has however become common practice to ‘borrow’ “within 5m and at knee height or above” from the Rule concerning a first hit shot at the goal during a penalty corner, but this is often ignored in open play. The Penalty Corner Rule also contains the statement that no shot at goal should be made in a dangerous way – a Rule statement that is generally ignored.

Despite their being no distance limit on LEA the majority of umpires would not I think consider any raised ball dangerous to a player if it was raised at him from more than 5m, even if it was at his chest height or head height. Many umpires, as was demonstrated in Beijing and later, will not penalise an attacker who raises the ball high towards the goal even if it hits a defender within 5m of their position. Some won’t penalise any ball raised towards an opponent in the opponent’s circle when they would probably do so if a similar ball was raised at an opponent outside his circle. ‘Interpretation’ is random and a mess based entirely on personal opinion i.e. how the umpires feels about it at the time or alternatively (and worse) what he or she has seen other umpires doing i.e. there is no judgement of the specific facts at all. This is laziness.

There are clearly insufficient safeguards in place for reasonable player safety and there is an urgent need for addition guidance about a ball propelled towards a player at high velocity from significantly beyond 5m – up to 15m – arriving at the defending player above a particular height – say sternum or elbow height – in other words reasonable objective criteria.

At present defenders are being obliged to attempt to play at high shots raised directly at them because successful evasion simply leads to the award of a goal, and unsuccessful evasion, not only usually leads to injury but to the award of a penalty stroke. That is the opposite to the supposed emphasis on safety which the FIH espouses, and which all participants (including umpires) are obliged to comply with. It is also contrary to the consideration for the safety of other players which all players are required to demonstrate in appropriate circumstances (most participants consider this requirement to be something that need not be taken seriously, a joke from the FIH who are seen to be just ‘covering their backs’).

Let’s take a look at the questions Pharoah put to the forum.

1) A free ball awarded inside the opponents 23m area cannot be played directly into their circle. That is the (very silly) Rule. I would like to see it deleted along with the raft of 5m restrictions on the free ball (especially when taken as a self-pass) currently in place.

2. You CAN raise the ball into the D, as long as its not dangerous right?

No, that is incorrect. The ball may not be raised into the circle with a hit if the ball has been raised intentionally. None of those who addressed this question on the forum mentioned the appropriate Rule 9.9. An intentional ball raising hit action must be penalised if it is dangerous in itself or leads to dangerous play or if it disadvantages opponents. The advice in the UMB “forget lifted – think danger”, which is too simplistic and which contradicts the Rule, should be withdrawn.

Other than dangerous or leading to danger there is no restriction on raising the ball into the opponents circle with a flick or scoop. That needs to be revisited in view of the facility granted to players to play at the ball at above shoulder height – which also needs reconsideration. I think that players should be prohibited from playing or playing at a ball at above shoulder height when in the opposition’s  circle.

3. A shot at goal (hit) that is rising and ends up in the top right/left comer of the goal should be disallowed right?

No, not unless it has endangered an opponent during its flight.

4. An FIH Technical Delegate and an FIH Umpire made a joke and a tongue in cheek (I hope) reply to this.
What do you do if (heaven forbid) you are unsighted and there is a foul which stops the game?

Another contributor answered correctly, that the umpires should consult, and if fault cannot be established, there must be a bully restart.

5. An attacker has had a shot on goal and the goalie has dived on the ball to stop it…is obviously trying to get up but the ball is being pushed below him by everyone fighting for the ball — PC right?

Not necessarily. If the goalkeeper has not obstructed an opponent before moving off the ball, the opponent/s trying to play it ‘through’ him while he is on the ground could be considered to be committing both a physical contact offence and an impeding offence. This was the only question of the five that received properly considered reply from any contributor to the forum.

The most extraordinary statement from Gingerbread was this, his second one:- ….when there is nothing to support it in any written rule, interpretation or edict – you have to look at practice and advice from your peers and player expectation or your local organisation”

“It” appears to be an opinion or a feeling by an umpire that an an action is dangerous, so where does that feeling come from if not from information gleaned from a reading of the Rules? I find it impossible to think of a dangerously played ball situation (other than the falling ball) where the ball has not been propelled directly at or into an opposing player and those situations are covered by the two ‘catch-alls’ mentioned above, imperfectly to be sure, but sufficiently for an umpire with common sense to take personal responsibility and make a Rule based decision. What we see far too often in hockey matches is umpires who base their decisions not on an understanding of what is given in the Rules of Hockey, but on common umpiring practice and advice from peers and player expectation or local umpiring organisations. Of the three only the local Umpiring Association is worthy of further consideration because their advice should come from experienced umpires and be based solely on the Rules of Hockey.

BUT I was once told by the secretary of a local umpiring association that he did not want me to umpire according to what was given in the rule-book (I was applying the ball-body contact Rule as it was written in the rule-book at the time) but to do what other umpires were doing. He had already ‘hung himself’ with his opening sentence, so I replied to him that I would have no problem doing what other umpires were doing as long as they applied the Rules as published by the FIH. That presented him with a ‘chicken and egg situation’ which he did not appreciate. But as far as I was concerned it was the other umpires who needed to change their ways.

The match shown below is one played during the 2016 Rio Olympics between Belgium and New Zealand. I would not suggest to any umpire that they follow the umpiring seen in it. Sadly it is very easy to find blunders of similar magnitude relating to nearly all the Rules of Conduct of Play during the Rio Olympics (I don’t recall a player throwing an object at another player or an umpire, or a back-sticks offence that was poorly umpired, but every other Rule was undermined with invention or neglect on several occasions in the matches during the Tournament)

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OP4Vmo5sQ4&w=800&h=450]

.

This sort of decision making is the norm in ball-body contact incidents. The Rule has become a farce designed to produced goals by increasing the number of penalty corners awarded (often without any justification at all).

Player expectation is created by their coaches and prior umpiring decisions, and umpiring decisions (umpires say) are then influenced by player expectation, eventually it is team coaches and players who will be deciding (the latter by their behaviour) which of the Rules will be observed and which not: that cannot be accepted. There is an example of this sort of thing in a previous post (in which I make suggestion for an amended Ball-body contact Rule)

https://martinzigzag.com/2019/06/20/ball-body-contac…hould-be-amended/ ‎

‎where someone commented that not awarding a penalty corner following a ball contact forced onto the leg of a defender in the circle would infuriate the attackers – yes it might, but that’s just too bad, it’s the only way to change the expectations of players who do not know the Rules. Changing the habits of umpires is a much more difficult problem.

I have been attacked in the comments section below by someone who believes I was wrong to apply the Rules as they were published at the time and says that I ruined the enjoyment of the game for the players.

 I advocate a rewrite of most of the Rules and the making of amendments to others, but I have never invented Rules while umpiring or applied those that no longer existed, sadly most umpires do both of these things.

FIELD HOCKEY RULES

Classical conditioning, the ‘Pavolivian response’ in which two events – here player action and umpire reaction – are not associated with the expected stimulus, The Rules of Hockey.

Just as Ivan Pavlov was able, in experimental conditions, to cause dogs to salivate in response to the sound of a bell or buzzer, rather than as is normal to the sight or smell of food, umpires respond to conditioning (coaching, peer group pressure, expectation) rather than, as they are expected to, applying the FIH Rules of Hockey as they are written.

(Not a strong analogy because a bell is ‘food neutral’ whereas umpire coaching that contradicts the Rules of Hockey is not neutral. But the training method is similar and something that should not be expected to cause the associated behavior, does so)

I received the following incoherent comment when I posted the above video on YouTube.

I’m afraid this is a consistent theme across all borders. A goal bound shot is just that irrespective of whether it might be dangerous. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy: it’s dangerous play at penalty corners so we put on protective gear (much like you would for ice-hockey) ……so it’s no longer dangerous! I stood on the line for many years and suffered from deliberate deflections that hit me in the face….guess what the result was.

My immediate thought was “Brain damage” but, I guess the result was that he was conditioned to believe, by the umpire’s responses to his being hit on the head with the ball, that it is an offence to be hit with the ball, but not an offence for an attacker (especially one taking a shot at the goal) to propel the ball in a way that will result in it hitting the head of an opponent if the defending opponent does not manage to get out of the way of the shot (and if he does get out of the way – takes legitimate evasive action to avoid injury – an on-goal shot will result in the award of a goal). And also the team of a player hit with the ball, who stops the ball, will in theses circumstances always be penalised with the award of a penalty stroke. That is, Rule 9.8 re: legitimate evasive action (and often what is given in Explanation with Rule 9.9 – i.e. raised towards, within 5m) will be ignored. The Rule itself ignores most situations where the defending player has no opportunity to take evasive action and is hit with the ball. i.e. there is no objective criterion for a dangerously played ball propelled from beyond 5m of the player hit (legitimate evasive action is a subjective judgement).

There are a number of fallacies and contradictions contained in the received comment but there is no cognitive dissidence caused to the player who made it because there is a trained disassociation between what is described as a dangerously played ball in the Rules of Hockey and the usual response, to what is in fact a dangerously played ball, from the authority figure of an umpire (apparently all or most umpires).

To summarize the received comment.

Umpires are right because they are qualified (and experienced) umpires, therefore a ball raised at my head at high velocity by an opponent *(when taking a shot at the goal) cannot be considered to be dangerous play because an umpire does not penalise that action as dangerous play.

• There is an opposite attitude taken to the raising of the ball at an opponent when outside of the circles or a ball raised by defenders propelling the ball from within their circle. The logic of this apparently does not interfere with the ‘logic’ of not penalising any raised goal-bound shot, despite the fact that the Rules of Hockey make no distinction between these actions wherever a player is endangered with a raised ball.

Umpires are conditioned in the same way, by observing what other umpires are doing and following their practice, because that is a) What they are coached to do, because it is b) consistent c) easy (no need to judge if evasive action is legitimate) d) expected by players (who have been trained by previous umpiring decisions).

The Rules of Hockey are commonly regarded as subservient to (and alterable by) coaching from Umpire Managers and Tournament Directors, received during Tournament Briefings and match debriefings, despite that fact that the FIH Executive have previously instructed that this cannot and must not be the case, because these officials do not have the authority to make or amend a Rule or Interpretation (the Explanation of application provide with the Rule).

FIELD HOCKEY RULES

Reducing cognitive dissidence, wilful blindness and confirmation bias.

http://fieldhockeyforum.com/threads/stroke-or-fhd.45374/

Ford lambert Hi guys, just want some opinions on wether I made the right call or not, so I will explain this as thoroughly as I can

Attacking team has a pc, they drag the ball out to the top and do a low drag flick to the right hand post. Keeper goes down, Defending teams postman goes to trap the ball, but lifts it into his own body on the line. I was thinking stroke, but the ball landed back to an attacking team player right in front of the goal, so I let play go on. The attacking player goes to lift the ball over the keeper who’s still on the ground, and ends up lifting the ball into the same defending teams postman face. The ball wasn’t lifted that hard, and the postman made no attempt to move or play the ball, so I called a stroke because he’s put himself in that position. He proceeded to complain that the attacking player intentionally lifted it into him,

Thoughts?

First thoughts.

This umpire has insufficient knowledge of the Rules of Hockey to be entrusted with the umpiring of a hockey match. He was responsible for applying the Rules concerning a dangerously played ball, but it is obvious from his post that he does not either know or understand them.

“Deliberately” defending the goal is not an offence. Positioning between an attacker in possession of the ball and the goal is not per se an indication of intention to use the body to stop or deflect the ball, (and acceptance of risk, another ‘justification’ often trotted out for penalising a player hit with the ball, can be applied only to legal actions or accidents, not to actions, by the player propelling the ball, that are contrary to Rule (offences). There is incidentally nothing in the Rules to suggest that endangering an opponent accidentally should not or cannot be treated as an offence). Raising the ball towards another player who is within 5m , is irrespective of intention, a dangerous play offence  – at all levels of play. (At the higher levels players should have the skill necessary to avoid propelling a raised ball towards an opponent. I throw that thought in because it is often claimed that at the higher levels a player ought to have the skill to stop the ball or avoid being hit with it, when it is propelled at him – much more difficult tasks and an unreasonable assertion).

Isfreaks is right to declare that a free ball should have been awarded to the defending team. The South African Hockey Association do not have the authority to amend Rule, they only have discretion, like all other National Associations, about the date of implementation at national level of any amendments made by the FIH RC in any particular year.

“All” means all, it does not mean some or all except high level players and officials.

Much of the comment in reply to the opening post focused on the umpire’s ‘failure’ to award a penalty stroke in accordance with the meme (not Rule) that a penalty stroke should always be awarded where that is appropriate rather than allowing advantage to the team offended against. What the Advantage Rule says (or used to say) is that advantage should be allowed if that is the more severe penalty – in other words whether or not to allow advantage or award penalty is a subjective judgement made by an umpire (This advice is now contained the section entitled Umpiring as part of 2.2.)

  I cannot judge this matter any better than any other respondent because I did not see the incident (and I certainly cannot state as fact in any circumstances, even if I witness an incident, that allowing advantage in this or that particular case was either right or wrong: I am not the umpire involved), but it seems to me that with the goalkeeper prone on the ground and the attacker in possession of the ball and (presumably from what is written) well within 5m of the goal-line, the judgement made in this instance, to allow play to continue, cannot be described as either incorrect or, in any sense, wrong.

What was wrong, very wrong, was the award of a penalty stroke following the dangerously played ball by the attacker. It is difficult to see how an umpire could not understand this:-

It should be noted that there is no requirement for evasive action included in the above clause and no mention of a minimum velocity. Neither is there, declarations by the South African HA and an Australian television sports commentator notwithstanding, any mention of advantage gained or of a shot at the goal.

When there is dangerous play by a player i.e raising the ball at an opponent, both advantaged gained or the fact that the dangerously raised ball was a shot at goal are irrelevant, the dangerous play must be penalised especially  if that opposing player is hit with the ball (not unless the opposing player is hit with the ball or the ball is going wide of the goal) that is, or should be, simple common sense. Why would any umpire penalise a player who has had the ball raised at them in a way that is clearly dangerous play? It makes no sense at all to do so.

.

The remarks made by the commentator in the above video contradict the Rules of Hockey, they are insane. This insanity has been spread far and wide by those who not only should know better, they do know better – so why have they done it, why are they doing it ?

There is a need for objective criteria to describe a dangerously played ball propelled towards an opponent from beyond 5m – up to 15m would be useful – e,g. above sternum height at a velocity that could injure a player hit with it – but that seems a long way off at the moment, because umpires are not yet consistently applying the criteria for a dangerously played ball that have been in place for more than thirty years. In fact many of them are following the nonsense ‘quoted’ by the commentator in the above video.

https://martinzigzag.com/2018/05/12/more-insanity/

FIELD HOCKEY RULES

A suggested rewrite of a Rule of Hockey.

Rule 9.8 Dangerously played ball.

The current Rule 9.8.

Players must not play the ball dangerously or in a way which leads to dangerous play.

A ball is considered dangerous when it causes legitimate evasive action by players.

The penalty is awarded where the action causing the danger took place.

Action: Amendment.

Reason. There is only a partial Rule at present because there are no criterion for either of the two offences mentioned when the endangered player is more than 5m from the player who propels it, that there is a breach of the Rule in these circumstances depends entirely the personal opinion of an individual umpire. In addition to that the Explanation of application given in Rule 9.9. is generally ignored if the ball is raised at or into an opponent at below knee height (despite the ‘backhand’ declaration in the UMB – which also conflicts with what is given with Rule 9.9 – that a ball raised into a player at below half-shinpad height is not dangerous, which creates an ambiguity about a ball raised into an opponent from close range that is raised between above ‘ below half-shin pad’ and knee height ). This situation gives players inadequate guidance about what is or will be considered to be a dangerously played ball or play leading to dangerous play. It is vital that players should be informed about this.

It is I think proper to use as much of the existing Rule as possible. I’ll start with Players must not play the ball dangerously. That is easy to leave in place even if “dangerously” is poorly defined because that flaw can be rectified. Having spent some time pondering whether to use or in a way that leads to dangerous play , an after the fact of dangerous play decision or to use the previous wording or in a way that is likely to lead to dangerous play which allows the umpire to make a decision prior to dangerous play actually occurring, if he or she judges that dangerous play is probable, I have opted to use both. Why choose only one or the other when both are required? – so or in a way that leads to or is likely to lead to dangerous play has been drafted into the proposal.

What objective criterion are used for the determination of ‘dangerously played ball’ are adopted from other Rules, particularly those of the Penalty Corner and Rule 9.9. so I will continue by gathering together the relevant parts of those other Rules.

From Rule 9.9.

It is not an offence to raise the ball unintentionally from a hit, including a free hit, anywhere on the field unless it is dangerous. If the ball is raised over an opponent’s stick or body on the ground, even within the circle, it is permitted unless judged to be dangerous.

Players are permitted to raise the ball with a flick or scoop provided it is not dangerous. A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous.

It should be noted that the last Rule clause above does not require legitimate evasive action, so such evasive action is not a requirement for a breach of Rule 9.8. just something that must be taken into consideration if it occurs; neither is there any mention of a minimum height limit.

From Rule 13.3.k.

if the first shot at goal is a hit (as opposed to a push, flick or scoop), the ball must cross the goal-line, or be on a path which would have resulted in it crossing the goal-line, at a height of not more than 460 mm (the height of the backboard) before any deflection, for a goal to be scored
The requirements of this Rule apply even if the ball touches the stick or body of a defender before the first shot at goal.

If the first shot at goal is a hit and the ball is, or will be, too high crossing the goal-line it must be penalised even if the ball is subsequently
deflected off the stick or body of another player.

The ball may be higher than 460 mm during its flight before it crosses the goal-line provided there is no danger and provided it would drop of its own accord below 460 mm before crossing the line.

From Rule 13.3.l

for second and subsequent hits at the goal and for flicks, deflections and scoops, it is permitted to raise the ball to any height but this must not be dangerous.

A defender who is clearly running into the shot or into the taker without attempting to play the ball with their stick must be penalised for dangerous play.

Otherwise, if a defender is within five metres of the first shot at goal during the taking of a penalty corner and is struck by the ball below the knee, another penalty corner must be awarded or is struck on or above the knee in a normal stance, the shot is judged to be dangerous and a free hit must be awarded to the defending team.

Again there is mention, in the Rule clause immediately above, of the possibility of a dangerously played ball without the requirement that there be legitimate evasive action taken; there are in fact objective criterion for a dangerously played ball a) at or above knee height and b) into a player who is within 5m of the first shot when the ball is propelled with any stroke. It is not stated that a subsequent hit shot towards a player within 5m must not be raised to above 460mm – just that it must not be dangerous.

The first clause of Rule 13.3.l addresses any shot at the goal made with a stroke other than a hit (for flicks, deflections and scoops, it is permitted to raise the ball to any height but this must not be dangerous) and second or subsequent hit strokes, the first hit stroke having been dealt with (more severely with a low maximum height for a goal to be scored) under Rule 13.3.k. but this clause does not state how a shot at the goal made during a penalty corner may be considered dangerous play, leaving only legitimate evasive action – an entirely subjective judgement by the umpire (not the player taking the evasive action !!) – when the ball is raised at or into a defender when that defender is more than 5m from the ball.

Rule 9.10 at one time treated a ball that had been lofted to fall onto the positions of opposing players within 5m of each other at the time the ball was raised as a ball that was likely to lead to dangerous play and such passes were penalised. The deletion of that clause from the Rule on the falling ball has caused a great deal of dangerous play and also much confusion about who causes danger when players contest for a falling ball – so the clause is restored in this dangerously played ball suggestion. (accidental deflections that become falling balls may be considered dangerous if contested for, but the deflection itself should not be treated in the same way as reckless or dangerous play, and illegally contesting for a falling ball following a deflection can be dealt with under Rule 9.10)

The Rules state clearly that a shot at the goal must not be made in a dangerous way i.e. must not be dangerous to other players – not cannot be dangerous i.e. it is possible for an on target shot to be dangerous.

The must not be dangerous imperative would not be included in the Rules if it was not possible for any on target shot at the goal to be dangerous. In this situation – where there is declared to be an overall emphasis on safety – only an idiot would interpret “must not be” to mean “not possible to be”, an ambiguous but possible construction of the words “cannot be”. The Rule states“must not be” rather than”cannot be” for good reason – to avoid such ambiguity. Those who have ‘interpreted’ “must not be” to mean “cannot be” don’t understand the context or structure of the language used – the syntax.

The suggestion.

All of these proposals are suggestions and not ‘cast in iron’, useful comment and alternative suggestion is welcome.

It is evident, despite persistent claims to the contrary, that a shot at the goal can be considered to be dangerous play and that it would be sensible to adopt from Rule 13.3.l “but this must not be dangerous” concerning all shots at the goal in any phase of play, in the same way that “a defender (sic) is within five metres….and is struck on or above the knee in a normal stance, the shot is judged to be dangerous” is already so adopted: so I will do that.

The other necessary step is to provide an objective criterion for ‘dangerously played’ when an opponent the ball is played towards is more than 5m away from the striker at the time the ball is propelled. I believe that sternum height (which is about elbow height) is a suitable height for ‘dangerous’ (being in the area of the heart) when a ball is propelled at or into another player, if that is done with a ball velocity that could injure that player – and I suggest that most shots made at the goal from more than 5m of defender, when those defenders are positioned between the shooter and the goal, are made at a velocity that could injure: there will be exceptions, lobs for example, in which case the umpire applies common sense and subjective judgement (we have to assume that all qualified umpires have common sense and are capable of subjective judgements based on reason and that otherwise they would not have qualified as umpires).

I am not suggesting that the ball may not be propelled at the goal at above elbow height, even at very high velocity, but that it should be considered to be dangerous play if a ball is propelled at (the position of) another player at elbow height or above – and not wide of or above defending players or at below half-shin pad – provide no player has fallen to ground in the path of the ball..

I believe that the combination “knee height and 5m” is an unnecessarily severe safety measure for competent players (but not for U12 and younger or for novices) and generally ignored anyway, so I have reduced that distance to 2m. That change requires the creation of a third zone, but I can’t at the moment think of a way to avoid that.The offence of forcing is restored when the ball is raised towards an opponent.

Players must not play the ball in a way that endangers other players or in a way that leads or is likely to lead to dangerous play.

A ball will be considered dangerously played when it is propelled or deflected towards another player, even as a shot at the goal, when the other player is a field player or player wearing only a helmet as additional protection and is :-

a) within 2m and the ball is raised, at any velocity, into that player at knee height or above (this is a forcing offence as well as dangerous play).

b) within 5m and the ball is raised, at a velocity that could cause injury, into that player at between knee height and elbow height.

c) at any distance and the ball is raised towards that player at above elbow (sternum) height at a velocity that could cause injury,

A ball that is played at a player in any of the above ways will be considered to have endangered that player even if the player evades the ball or manages, having been forced to self-defence, to play it safely with the stick. Successful self-defence when self defence is forced does not mean there was no endangerment

In the event of evasion to avoid injury or forced self-defence caused by a dangerously played ball, the umpire should immediately penalise the player who propelled the ball, in line with the declared emphasis on safety unless:-

a) the dangerous action was entirely accidental, for example an unintended deflection AND the team of the endangered player were able to play on with advantage.

b) the endangering action was careless or reckless play, but the opposing team could play on with advantage; in these cases penalty (personal) can be delayed, but should not be forgotten.

A ball that had been lofted to fall onto the positions of opposing players within 5m of each other at the time the ball was raised (an aerial pass) and in such a way that two or more opposing players can compete for the ball as it is falling from above head height, must be treated as a ball that is dangerous or likely to lead to dangerous play and the player who raised the ball should be penalised.

A ball that is raised into a fully equipped goalkeeper can endanger him or her but, much depends on the protective equipment the goalkeeper is wearing, how the ball is propelled and from what distance. Endangerment must in this case remain an entirely subjective decision.

A velocity that could cause injury is not an entirely a subjective judgement because ball velocity will be comparable with the ball velocity of a powerfully made hit or drag-flick at the high end or, at the low end, a lob or a short flick (a flick that would not carry in the air beyond 5m) and so be largely an objective judgement, but there is a substantial element of subjective judgement involved.
Below are two, all too rarely seen examples of an umpire, the New Zealander Kelly Hudson, correctly penalising a dangerously raised ball.

.

.

But even while discussing the injury to the player hit on the head the television commentators could not stop themselves saying “The attacker was entitled to take the shot” and “She (the defender) did stop a shot at the goal“. Both were fixated on the possibility that the defender had committed an offence. We need to be clear about ‘entitlements’ and what is and is not an offence. Yes, the attacker was entitled i.e. not prohibited, from taking a raised hit shot at the goal provided the shot made did not endanger another player, so in this case the attacker committed a dangerous play offence because what she did is prohibited (but at present only clearly so when a shot is  taken during a penalty corner or the ball is raised into an opponent within 5m, everything else depends on umpire judgement).

The acceptance of risk is often advanced as a reason to penalise defenders who are , and let us be clear about this, entitled to take up defensive positions between a shooter and the goal (there is no other way to defend the goal). Yes, there is a risk and one that is accepted by defenders, that such positioning may result in them being hit with the ball. That does not mean that such positioning is done with the intention of being hit with the ball and nor does it mean that if the defender is hit with the ball the defender has committed an offence, on the contrary it often means the attacker has committed an offence.

For offence there are three conditions to be met and acceptance of risk is not one of them. First, the ball must not be played at the defender in a dangerous way (if the ball has been played dangerously at a defender, for example raised towards the defender from within 5m, we need go no further, a free ball must be awarded to the defending team).

Defenders do not have to accept that opponents may breach any Rule with impunity just because they are shooting at the goal – that is not an acceptable risk – a breach of Rule cannot be treated as an accepted risk.

I have no doubt that had the above incident occurred in a men’s game, especially one of such importance and when their team were losing, that the attacking team would have been demanding at least a penalty corner because the defender’s head stopped a goal-bound shot. Women have much more sense, but it is to the credit of the Dutch team that there was not a hint of appeal for penalty against the injured defender, it was fully accepted that the fault was that of the attacking striker: that of course is how it should be – and well umpired too.

https://martinzigzag.com/2018/03/12/a-suggested-rewrite-rule-9-8/

FIELD HOCKEY RULES

A gap or a black hole into which all common sense disappears?

CANT.  noun

1. 1.

   hypocritical and sanctimonious talk, typically of a moral, religious, or political nature.
2. 2.

   language specific to a particular group or profession and regarded with disparagement.

The following statements appear to be cant – They are generally treated as such by both players and umpires.

Responsibility and Liability. Participants in hockey must be aware of the Rules of Hockey and of other information in this publication. They are expected to perform according to the Rules.

Emphasis is placed on safety. Everyone involved in the game must act with consideration for the safety of others.

Rule 9. Conduct of play : players
Players are expected to act responsibly at all times.

Rule 9.9. Players are permitted to raise the ball with a flick or scoop provided it is not dangerous. A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous.

Rule 9.8. A ball is also considered dangerous when it causes legitimate evasive action by players.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

The gap I am referring to is the one between these two Rule statements, which could and should be bridged.

Rule 9.9. Players are permitted to raise the ball with a flick or scoop provided it is not dangerous. A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous.

Rule 9.8. A ball is also considered dangerous when it causes legitimate evasive action by players.

There is nothing at all (except in the penalty Corner Rules) stated about a hit that is raised towards another player who is within 5m (even though Rule 9.9. is about the intentionally raised hit) and although common sense should bridge this gap all too often it does not. The absence of reference to a raised hit in open play – unless it is clearly intentionally raised – allows idiots (those people without any common sense) to declare that it is not illegal to raise the ball with a hit into a close opponent – and they do declare it – often.

Oddly the only time a ball may legally be raised with a hit is when a player is shooting at the opponents goal from within their circle (precisely when a raised hit is most likely to be dangerous to opponents, who will of course be trying to defend the goal). Shooting at the goal is not the same thing as shooting at or through opponents who are positioned between the shooter and the goal – such action may be illegal i.e. contrary to Rule – but that fact has yet to be accepted by many players and umpires.

Two other missing criteria are necessary to make good sense and enable consistent application of the Rules concerning the endangerment of another player when the ball has been propelled towards that player – shot at goal or not. The first is a minimum height limit.

It is common practice to adopt “knee height or above” from the criteria for a legal first hit shot at the goal made during the taking of a penalty corner even though that conflicts with Rule 9.9 (re flicks and scoops) which gives no height criteria at all – so any such raising of the ball into another player should be considered illegal. However, the Umpire Manager’s Briefing for FIH umpire at Tournaments ambiguously and in conflict states:-

.

Low balls over defenders sticks in a controlled manner that hit half shin pad are not dangerous.

The UMB is produced by the FIH Umpiring Committee and I have been informed by the Secretary of the FIH Rules Committee that it is produced in liaison with the FIH RC. That seems to me to be a way of creating ‘Rule’ while circumventing the approval of the FIH Executive, which Rules must have, but I put that objection to one side for the moment.

The half-shin pad height advice has been in the UMB for a number of years. Why, if it is there with the approval of the FIH RC, has the FIH RC not incorporated it (in clear form) into the Rules of Hockey? Why do the Rules of Hockey make no reference at all to a hit raised towards another player – other than “causes legitimate evasive action” (which can be applied to a ball raised with any stroke), and also a ball raised to above 460mm from a first hit shot taken during a penalty corner ?

In what circumstances is evasive action legitimate? is another difficult question, which brings us to the second missing criteria, ball velocity (although there is a lot yet to be said about distances and height limits – 5m cannot be the only distance employed in judgement of ‘dangerous’ and nor can ‘knee height or above’ and ‘half-shin pad’ be the only height guidance provided). A height limit of sternum or elbow height for any ball propelled towards another player beyond 5m distance (a drag-flick during a penalty corner for example) is I think worth serious consideration.

Ball velocity is the only criterion for dangerous which requires an element of subjective judgement. Velocity can be determined objectively by comparing for example the ball velocity of a hit made with maximum power or the velocity a flick that will fall to ground before it has travelled 5m, but the umpire is still relying heavily on personal perception. Possibly the most useful subjective judgement umpires can make is to ask themselves “If that ball hit me would it hurt/injure/incapacitate me? If a player is obviously injured and/or incapacitated following being hit with a raised ball the question is mute. it is however an important question if the evasive action is successful – successful evasion of the ball by the player it has been raised at does not make an illegally (a dangerously) raised ball a safe one. Nor is a ball raised towards a player safe if that player is hit with it when he or she has had no opportunity to take evasive action.

.

In the first and third videos below evasive action is successfully taken (in the third video by the defender nearer to the ball at the time it was hit; the second defender, who was probably sight blocked by the first defender, was hit with the ball).

.

.

In the above incident the flicker propelled the ball high and directly at the first runner, the runner evaded the ball (there had therefore already been a dangerous play offence before the player on the goal-line was hit with the ball). Because the runner was sight-blocking the post-man had no time to find,track and play or evade the ball, he suffered a fractured skull and a perforated ear drum.(which the umpire could not immediately know, but serious injury was obvious)  A penalty stroke was awarded.

This ‘lining up’ and targeting of defending players was done deliberately, I have other videos of the same team and flicker using exactly the same tactic in other matches. Here is one with the same flicker:-

.

How does it work? If the first defender stops or deflects the ball away with his body another penalty corner is awarded, otherwise the second defender is either hit with the ball and a penalty stroke awarded or he manages to evade the ball and a goal is awarded. It does not enter the heads of umpires to penalise a shooter for dangerous play. “It was a shot at the goal” is the usual nonsensical response.

.

https://martinzigzag.com/2018/02/26/a-gap/