Is governing hockey administrators simply putting their ‘head in the sand’ or taking a soft approach about the dangers associated with player safety on corners?
In a previous article on Go Hockey News we posted about the death of Australian cricketer Phil Hughes after being hit in the head by a bouncer despite having a protective helmet on and its implication for hockey (http://gohockeynews.com/feature-the-tragedy-of-australian-cricketer-phil-hughes-has-implications-for-hockey-decision-makers/ ).
Drag flicking on corners with no height restrictions plus inadequate player protection is an open door to further hockey tragedies and therefore needs to again be brought into the light in response to what Cricket Australia is doing to address the after mouth outcries for the need for additional player safety.
Phil Hughes
The Phil Hughes tragedy led to the subject of player safety to be revisited by administrators and gear manufacturers. Having flagged the possibility of a review in the days after Hughes’ death in November last year, the CA chief executive James Sutherland announced the measure, which will be helmed by the QC David Curtain, a former chairman of the Victorian Bar Council and president of the Australian Bar Association. When this tragedy happened, I said that it was a freak accident, but it was one freak accident too many,” Sutherland said. “Never again do we want to see something like that happen on a cricket field. (CA chief executive James Sutherland)
Amongst the terms of reference for this inquiry are the following
- The causes and circumstances which led to the injury and ultimate death of Phillip Hughes
- The policies, practices or systems in place to prevent a similar accident from occurring including those in relation to the prevention of traumatic injuries to the head and heart
- CA’s approach to mandating, and enforcing the use and wearing of personal protective equipment in order to protect the head and heart
- CA’s approach to the provision and use of cricket helmets, including consideration of helmet certification standards and suitability
I envisage that in this inquiry there will be attention to the parts of the game that contribute to an accident like this (i.e., bouncers) and the significance of these games aspects as important to the overall game development; the type of equipment being used for accident prevention and their effectiveness, imposing mandatory safety precautions to prevent injury.
In the same way hockey administrators need to review the current importance of and execution of the drag flick on corners, appropriate player protection to defend against aerial drag flicks, mandatory wearing of player protection on corners, and at what level in game level development is drag flicking acceptable.
Cricket has started the ball rolling so let hockey do likewise. As a consequence of the Phil Hughes tragedy cricket helmet manufacturers went to work on safety improvement. Although one would think the helmet Phil Hughes wore was adequate it became apparent there was one flaw and that is human instinct. It is a natural act to turn ones head to an oncoming ball to the head and as by the diagram below this is what Phil Hughes did.
As a result of this issue cricket helmet manufacturers design a honeycomb protection piece to be added to the helmet to counteract side on impact.
Now let us review what we currently have in hockey – check out the exposed areas
At present the hockey rules regarding face masks are to say the least are inadequate in need on a more thorough review. What are your thoughts when you review the following FIH hockey rules regarding player protection and face masks?
- are permitted to wear a smooth preferably transparent or white but otherwise single coloured face mask or metal grill face mask, which follows the contours of the face, when defending a penalty corner or penalty stroke for the duration of that penalty corner or penalty stroke and when they are inside the circle they are defending; the primary objective of wearing a face mask to defend a penalty corner is safety; wearing of face masks which are consistent with the underlying spirit of this guidance should be allowed;
- are not permitted, when wearing face masks, to conduct themselves in a manner which is dangerous to other players by taking advantage of the protective equipment they wear;
- other than players with goalkeeping privileges, are not permitted to wear protective headgear (face mask or other protective head covering) in any other circumstances. FIH RULES (42)
Having a better solution to face mask protection is only one aspect to address in a review but also there is mounting evidence to visit or revisit game development when it comes to drag flicking. Not only from a safety viewpoint but the manner in which is dominating goal scoring results at elite levels. Also Go Hockey News readers have been vocal about their views about player safety needs and drag flicking emphasis in response to the Phil Hughes Go Hockey article. The following viewpoints make good reading.
HAVE YOUR SAY ALSO YOU NEVER KNOW WHO MIGHT BE READING
The drag flick should be put with the hit on penalty corners and that is no higher than 18″ All drag flicks and hits should hit the backboard on penalty corners.
Mark F
I have been concerned for some time about the safety of my defenders during p.cs . I am a g.k and have protection but my attention is often distracted by a defender who is in the path of an open shot and not even wearing a mask! As an Aust ump I have seen many severe facial injuries and safety ruling I can’t help but shudder at every p.c. when I know, as a gk, it’s my responsibility to stop the drag flick, but some runners are always vulnerable. A safety measure is vital now!!
JAN Mc
Possible solutions-
a. better headwear to cover side of head as illustrated
b. 3 for a goal, 1 for penalty corner a good idea. In the Nat Rugby Champs they increased points for a try and reduced penalty goal from 3 to 2 points. Conversion was increased to 3 points. This encouraged teams to go for the try. If they are going for the field goal, there would have to be a limit of defensive players in the 22m. Remain at five players as for penalty corner- rest outside until ball passed by attack.
c. Less penalty goals by rule change- too harsh a penalty for accidental foot in circle, play on as trialled in the past.
d. Height of drag flick must be below waist height.
Kerry W
I am a mum who has lost a son to a road crash(not his fault) his passion was hockey and he put a lot into his club and association.
I am the nanna of a gifted young man who plays goalie as well as being very capable on the field (if only school work was as easy) He has spent the last 3 years living with his pop and I to go to a school that has greatly helped him. We got him into the local team and he has spent 3 seasons playing from local to representative hockey for this area. during the time my husband and I have noticed there is a huge range of participants from very gifted to beginners all playing for the same teams. in the season just completed there was a very ,very gifted young fellow who continually used what I believe to be the drag flick mostly to no advantage because his inexperienced teammates didn’t know what to do. This was frustrating to watch but also VERY, VERY frightening for the exact thing that happened to Phillip Hughes- a very experienced sportsman. The other kids on the field were in no way capable of dealing with the ball and also exposed to great danger. my grandson hit a goal from a perfect tomahawk hit in a game , his coach immediately told him don’t do it again please because the other kids (inexperienced) will copy you and they are not up to that level yet. Correct call because kids have to master the basics well first. I couldn’t help replying as I strongly feel the same as Rick Charlesworth. The drag flick does not belong in hockey ESPECIALLY at lower and junior levels. From what I witnessed it is actually downright dangerous
Trish B
All PC’s should have to hit the backboard to keep the drag flickers down. Personally I also believe all tomahawks should banned, whilst it looks great at international level, where they know how to control it and where it’s going, at low level it’s lethal.
Frazer
Why not make the rule that forbids the goalie from laying on the turf for the first shot at goal and the ball must not be raised above the backboard whether hit or drag flicked.
Billy B
It is inevitable that Hockey will one day suffer a major incident similar to Phil Hughes. The danger is not just, as this article suggests, on a penalty corner. The rules prevent a player protecting themselves anywhere on the field of play. Hockey is theoretically a non-contact sport yet there is a hard ball being hit with a stick. The ball does get raised and becomes dangerous yet a player is only allowed mouth guard and shin pads by the rules. Why is headgear illegal?
James
Although I understand the drag flick risks, they are not the only risk. Take the simple situation of a strike on goal in open play. The goalie saves the ball but it bounces off his glove to an attacker 5 metres out with a defender on the line who doesn’t even have a mask. A half volley hit can move at 120+mph and from 5 metres no one will have the reactions to get out of the way. Someone will die, it is just a matter of time.
Keith W
I can relate to this story. My son was hit above his right eye 3.5 years ago at U13B State championship as a result of a short corner which the shot was mishit and raised. He was second runner and blinded by the first runner. Even if he was wearing a clear face mask it would not have protected the area where he was hit. Doctors said if the ball had hit him a few cm towards middle it would have shattered all his sinuses. A few cm further to right and he may not have survived. He ended up with a displaced fracture, shattered eye socket and small internal bleeding on the brain – which wasn’t picked up until a couple of days later when the specialist in Brisbane found it. The Hughes incident reminded us how lucky our son was.
Indoor hockey only has a the keeper in the goal box, why can’t something like this be experimented with (defenders/ runners to opposite side of box or back at half way? Or as an option award a one on one situation like our shoot outs. As you say the goalie is the one who is best equipped to defend the box. In basketball you are awarded a free throws, it would be like hockey taking a stroke or shoot out.
I know my proud son would not wear a mask defending a corner, so if we can take defenders out of the corner situation it would be better off.
Leanne A
Some of the rules need to be reviewed not from a spectators perspective, but from player safety concerns.
Another of the issues to this one, is the ability for attackers to hit the ball at any height/speed into a goal in general play. As a defender there is no chance of wearing a mask, and as an umpire I “hold my breath” allowing this stroke to be played as it will only be a matter of time that someone will be seriously injured.
Sharon
I agree with the sentiments expressed above in regards to the dangers posed by drag flicks to defenders (other than the goalie).
I also believe that tomahawk shots at goals can be just as dangerous for defenders. One day I expect to read or witness serious injury resulting from an uncontrolled or poorly executed tomahawk shot. Maybe the FIH needs to revisit the dangers posed by these to players versus the spectator appeal!
Keith J
I totally agree that it is ridiculous that they are allowed above the top of the back board when they clearly have potentially as much if not sometimes more risk than the speed a ball is hit. Safety was the reason the back board rule was brought in. Sometimes when facing a drag flick it is impossible to even see the ball coming through the traffic of players until you are picking it up from the back of the goal after it having travelled just past your head. Insane really that they are still allowed. I’m not sure but I would like to think that the 5 metre rule came about partly due to safety. Hopefully some sense will come to fruition before someone is seriously injured or dies
Brian E
Agree with your thoughts almost completely other than the option of allowing drag flicks provided they hit the backboard as a mistimed drag flick could still be pulled up into someone’s head. Just ban it plan and simple.
No need to change the points structure, but interesting thought.
The other issue is the tomahawk around goals. Players are completely defenceless (not even a face mask) and the hitter rarely knows where the ball will end up. Plus how many times do you see forwards doing tomahawk after tomahawk for no result. Just pass the ball.
Great to get the discussion going as it’s NOT an accident when someone is killed due to a dangerous action that the rule makers allow.
Paul R
I agree that hockey administrators should be proactive and impose the same height restriction on the drag flick as for a hit at goal in the interests of player safety.
Even at club level, teams ‘play to be awarded a corner’ rather than going for a goal. Therefore, idea of awarding more for a field goal than a corner goal is a good one but think 2pts to 1pt would be fairer.
Julie H
After a hockey player was killed in recent years in Perth after receiving a ball to the head during field play, and seeing another in a country local comp receive a ball to the temple in a penalty corner situation that wasn’t the result of a drag flick and required extensive rehab and treatment for a depressed skull fracture and cannot play hockey again, the more we can minimise players forced to be in the line of fire the better it will be at all levels of the game.
Alisha
A wonderful piece of overdue common sense from both Ric Charlesworth and the HA writer. I, like most hockey players fully endorse both the comments and the solutions. After seeing a young South African international player ( 1st Runner) hit fair and square in the forehead by a drag flick missile several years ago I felt sure that FIH would take measures to eliminate both the drag flick and the inequities of in-circle infractions. As a goalkeeper of nearly 60 years experience I believe I have seen it all but this is the most glaring shortcoming by the administrators of this game in its REAL duty of care to the participants.
Bill B
I had raised similar views with our State Association a couple of years ago regarding the potential danger from the drag flick. Having been involved in the sport for over 50 years as a player, official, coach this was the first time players were required to wear protective equipment to combat a skill. We are also now seeing variations to the running of defenders in an attempt to combat the flick. (Men’s Champions Trophy saw England run two runners down the barrel.)
This is an extract of what I sent to our State Association:
As the 9′s were also being played at the time it provided an alternative to the current PC and focused on the skills of our game and not one person’s ability to flick the ball potentially causing injury or worse.
Penalty corners
I have long held the view that the drag flick on penalty corners has created a danger in our sport and again doesn’t reward the skills of our game. Over many years we have seen changes to the penalty corner where the ball could be hit/pushed/flicked at any height to score a goal; to introducing the backboard height rule for hits to limit the danger. Teams then discovered the drag flick and all of a sudden we have a skill that could cause serious injury but is permitted. In particular at junior level where players don’t have the skill to avoid the raised ball. The additional time lost in games to allow players to put on all the protective gear they wear these days also detracts from the spectacle of the game. We see a break between the awarding of a PC and the actual start of the corner can be anywhere from 30 to 60 seconds. If a team earns 10 PC’s for the match that is 10 minutes they could lose. (This has been changed now with time out at international tournaments and 15 minute quarters)
We are trying to make it more appealing for television and we lose time to allow players to put on protective gear due to a potential danger we have created.
Again the 9’s show cases the skills of the game and without the statistics from each match we saw high level tactical skills shown by all teams to construct a goal. I’m sure more people (hockey & non hockey followers) would appreciate seeing more of this than watching someone drag flick the ball head high and possibly causing an injury to another player.
Addition
The Phil Hughes incident has brought home to us all the dangers of playing sport and hopefully it doesn’t take another serious injury to rethink what could be better for hockey in the long run
Greg R
Go Hockey News invites you to have your say or contribute to any Go Hockey News articles.
