Go Hockey News umpiring contributor Martin Conlon identifies and reviews 20 frequently asked questions about the development of hockey rules. In this edition Martin follows on with the second 10 from the April edition, i.e.,
Rules of Hockey. FAQ with answers, from the Rules Section of the FIH website.
http://www.fih.ch/en/sport/rules/faq – Frequently Asked Questions about the Rules of Hockey.
1. I have a question on the rules, where can I get an answer?
First seek help from your National Association. They will sometimes have an Umpiring or Technical Committee which can respond to you. You should also go through your national association to get in touch with the Rules Committee.
All of these bodies will refer you to the Rules of Hockey – as if it had not occurred to you to read them – even if you quote relevant Rules to them when putting your question – and there are a great many questions to be answered.
Some Rules tend to reappear in cycles (with from twelve to twenty years between cycles ), ‘new Rules’ are often the return of ‘old friends’ in various guises.
Controlling how or if a ball may be raised into the opponent’s circle is one of the most frequent ‘visitors’ – now overdue a return. It’s a Rule that has never been ‘got right’. As with several other Rules, it has swung from total ban to complete free-for-all on more than one occasion.
The Rules concerning the raised ball – and also the ball played into the circle – are dreadfully mixed-up at the moment. There is a height restriction on the first hit-shot made during a penalty corner and there is a prohibition on playing a penalty free-ball from within the opponent’s 23m line into their circle, these contrast with no control at all on a high first shot made with a drag-flick during a penalty corner and the ‘accidental’ raising of the ball with a hit in open play, especially into the circle (both are subject to ‘dangerous play’ but the judgement of dangerous play is so inconsistent that the, fragmented, dangerous play Rules are something of a joke).
I feel that a hit made to beyond the playing reach of the hitter (i.e. a HIT intended as a pass or a cross) – or a free-ball propelled with any stroke – should not be permitted to be raised directly into the opponent’s circle (limiting the height of a ball raised into the circle with a stroke other than a hit might also be considered). Height criteria should be applied to any ball propelled at high velocity at an opponent with any stroke and from any distance. One of the principle differences between hockey and soccer – and other ‘large soft ball’ games – is that a hockey ball propelled at high velocity is capable of killing a participant (at any level of play), the Rules need to take that fact into account.
2. Are the rules invented and/or developed only round the table at Rules Committee meetings?
Every significant rules change or mandatory experiment is the result of discussions and trials in many countries . The Rules Committee is keen to consult with other interested groups. For example, it gets feedback from and its members arrange or attend seminars for coaches from around the world.
I wonder how often a full Rule Committee meeting is held around a table. The minutes of any such meetings would make interesting reading, but just what is and is not discussed at any Rules Committee meeting appears to be a secret. There is no way of knowing if any Rule proposal submitted to the Rules Committee is actually brought to the attention of the full Committee and discussed.
Again I am interested in the ‘insignificant changes’ to the Rules, the ones that are not discussed by the Rules Committee, because of course this should not happen. In theory a change to a Rule that has not been drafted by the Rules Committee and not then submitted by them to the FIH Executive for approval, is an impossibility, but the language used in the above paragraph suggests otherwise. Is that a mistake or an acknowledgement of ‘loopholes’ that allow change without due process?
Who decides what is insignificant? This: –
Having received the ball the receiver must move away in any direction except bodily into an opponent
which in 1994 was altered to read:-
Having received the ball the receiver may move away in any direction except bodily into an opponent
is possibly the most significant “insignificant” change made (to what at the time was called Rule Guidance) in the last twenty years. This seemingly insignificant and unannounced one word alteration, changed a directive enforced by penalty, into a player choice, and eventually fundamentally changed the way in which the game is played. The alteration was unannounced and in fact not noticed by many at first. When questions about the reason for the change of word were eventually put to the Hon.Secretary of the HRB, they were ignored. It has to be said that at the time many umpires applied the Obstruction Rule in the same way most umpires now penalise ‘feet’. If umpires got confused about a passage of play where players were close to each other, they were likely to blow the whistle and use “Obstruction” as a ‘catch-all’ fall-back. Television commentators declared that obstruction had been penalised if they had no idea why the whistle had been blown (which was most of the time).
Good players were at the time as likely to be obstructing an opponent as a good player is now likely to intentionally kick the ball while in possession of it, i.e. very rarely, but disputing ‘obstruction’ can be quite difficult and so a call of “Obstruction” was made far more often than it should have been – the exact opposite of what is happening now. At present players are being coached to shield the ball to prevent an opponent attempting a legal tackle – what umpires are being coached about obstructive play is something of a mystery.
It makes as much sense to now ignore the Obstruction Rule (illegal ball shielding, that is ball shielding to prevent a legal tackle attempt) as it would be to completely ignore the ball-body contact Rule, because poor umpires penalise all ball-body contact i.e. make no judgement at all regarding intent.
There was not much wrong with the (sic) new Obstruction Rule Interpretation of 1993, but umpires tend (as a matter of habit) to apply the Rules of Hockey as they were in the days when they themselves were playing hockey or as they are instructed to apply them.
In 1994 many umpires had not adjusted to (or refused to accept a la ‘gains benefit’ in 2007) the fact that a player could then, following the changes to wording made in 1993, receive the ball from the direction their defence, even when closely marked, without offence. A lead run to make space and to avoid being forced into an obstructing position was no longer a necessity – but having received the ball “must move away” was a requirement of the Rule. The interpretation of obstruction was changed radically in 1993 from the way it had been applied for more than forty years previously.
However, as was pointed out in the Preface if the Rule Book (in some desperation) in 1998 “There is still an Obstruction Rule” But, ‘penalise all’ or ‘completely ignore all’ are normal and usual rather than unusual attitudes – both these extremes are easier than making judgement concerning offence in every single case (thinking, particularly thinking quickly and in a rational and consistent way, is hard work and can be very difficult – especially when it has to be done over an extended period – 3 mins or more at a time) in a few years we went from one extreme to another. From a situation where trying to dribble past an opponent with the ball controlled to the left side of the body could (incorrectly) be penalised as obstructive play, even if the ball was to the front of the dribbler’s feet, to one where players got (get) away with holding the ball in a corner of the pitch while trying to draw a contact foul from a tackler. – but the Rule had not changed, “only” the interpretation of it.
We, all of us, tend, to avoid the work of thinking, and therefore to swing between one extreme and the other in many areas of Rule (and of opinion in general, other people are often seen as “brilliant” or as “idiots” – instead of what they are, “normal” – depending on whether or not one agrees with their opinions. A person who is said to be mistaken about (any) one thing can easily be assumed to be foolish about everything and dismissed as ‘an idiot’.)
In hockey the raising of the ball with a hit is another example of the sort of ‘swing’ of attitude, that has occurred with obstruction. In the mid 1980’s it was for a time considered ‘spectacular hockey’ to permit the ball to be hit high into the air and travel almost the length of the pitch, with a ‘chip hit’ from the ground. That rather quickly swung to the opposite extreme, with such play being described as ‘boring’ at the higher levels and ‘lethal’ at the lower – the result was a ban on ANY intentional raising of the ball with a hit (except, illogically, where it was likely to be most dangerous, when shooting at the opponent’s goal from within their circle). Umpires then avoided applying this rather daft Rule with the UMB advice, forget lifted – think danger creating a conflict between the Rules of Hockey and the UMB.
The umpiring of ‘feet’ and obstructive ball shielding are but two areas of Rule ‘swing’ or ‘seesaw’. We should, after more than 150 years of development, be able to recognize and retain the parts of a Rule which are good and useful and discard those parts which are not – instead, over and over again, we tend to embrace or reject entire Rules and all the clauses associated with them : good and bad.
Two fairly recent deletions Forcing and the ‘gains benefit’ exception clause, are clearly mistakes. Forcing a player to self-defence should obviously not be permitted and no good reason was offered for this deletion – there is in fact a (false) insistence that all Forcing offences were merely ‘transferred’ to ‘other Rules’. However, if anything, the deletion of the ‘gains benefit’ clause was even worse – because umpires (led from the top) refused to accept it. There is now a quaint statement in the UMB that the text of the Rule supports the present interpretation (umpiring practice) – it does nothing of the sort but it is difficult to make the argument by comparing “the present interpretation” with what is written in the rule book because the interpretation is not set out in the UMB.
Some practice clearly had to be got rid off – the penalising of all ball-body contact on the pretense or assumption that a player who is hit with the ball has always disadvantaged opponents and therefore gained an unfair benefit for his or her team. – a ‘catch all’ that makes for easier umpiring – is clearly unfair and wrong.
But some aspects of the penalising of ‘gains benefit’ should have been retained. Umpires are presently persistently and consistently penalising with a penalty stroke a player who while attempting to play the ball with his or her stick accidentally/unavoidably makes body contact with the ball and directly prevents the opposing team scoring a goal. There is now no basis in Rule for any penalty in these circumstances – never mind a penalty stroke. According to the explanation of application given with the Rule, penalty cannot be a correct decision because the player hit with the ball has committed no offence: that too is wrong. It’s not incorrect but clearly wrong for the game, it’s wrong because, if the explanation was applied as written in the Rule Book it could lead to reckless defending. This is a ‘classic’ example of deletion of an entire clause (because it was being misused) without considering why it was in the Rules in the first place and how that element of it could be retained. It’s not a difficult problem to resolve, why hasn’t it been done?
3. Do “minor” hockey countries have input on the rules or its development?
The Rules Committee aims to listen to everyone about rules because the rules apply throughout the globe. It has been some of the so called “minor” nations who have been most active in conducting trials – and their experience has influenced thinking in the Rules Committee.
I believe that the main reason the lower ranked nations have been asked to conduct trials fairly frequently is because the higher ranked nations would refuse to do so if they thought that the time taken for a national domestic trial (and away from the hockey being played by rival nations), might adversely affect their future performance in competitions and therefore on their ranking – which in turn might have an effect on their participation in the Olympic Games and/or World Cup. On the other hand a year spent practicing a change of Rule (a different penalty corner format for example) could give a significant advantage to the nation conducting the trial if the change was subsequently adopted – and that would upset the other high ranked nations not involved in the trial. There are no such concerns for nations who have little or no chance of achieving and sustaining a high ranking. Mandatory Experiments are a different matter – ‘everyone is in the same boat’.
The emergence of regular club and sponsored team Leagues, such as the European Hockey League and the Hero Hockey League in India or the Lanco 9’s in Australia, provides opportunity for trials involving players from the top ranked nations without impinging on International programs or national championships, so trials within the lower ranked countries may well decrease or cease completely. The problem with this approach is that only high level players and umpires are involved in such trials and a two or three tier game evolves (and only high level play is considered important and only the opinions of high level umpires and team coaches are taken much notice of).
4. Why do we play with the same rules for every level?
So that the game each of us plays is the game played by everyone else in the world. For example, a young player can learn from senior and experienced players . It also encourages consistent coaching and umpiring.
A ‘loaded’ question: we should, but we don’t, play with or to the same Rules at every level.
5. What is the influence of sponsors/television on the development of the rules?
There is no direct influence from sponsors or television. This is because their aims and needs are the same as those of the Rules Committee.
The principle aims and needs of commercial sponsors and of television companies are increasing financial profits by increasing the market share of products by increasing ‘exposure’ to potential customers. Neither trading products or selling advertising time for profit is a stated aim or a role of the FIH Rules Committee. To say that there is no direct influence avoids the question. No direct influence on the FIH Executive Board is anyway now – following the recent deal with Star television – obviously not the case. That deal will have a direct effect on the Rules of the game, the initial Rule changes to be made, to suit the television company, have already been announced via a Press Release. This appears however to be a case of the FIH Executive Board ignoring its own rules by drafting Rule detail in advance of the Rules Committee doing so.
6. Some rules are difficult to understand for spectators, television, etc. Can something be done?
One of the aims of the Rules Committee is to make the game easier to understand for spectators and television – and is constantly seeking to achieve a balance between its various aims including making the game easier to understand.
“Can something be done?” Is an utterly useless question. The answer is obviously “Yes” but the person asking the question needs to suggest what the “something” ought to be and perhaps also how it could be achieved.
It might be supposed that an Internet hockey forum would be an excellent place to make a Rule suggestion and get it widely discussed and ‘fine tuned’. Surprisingly this is not the case. One forum I was involved with actively discouraged contributors making suggestions for any ‘new Rule’ or any Rule amendment, with senior umpires insisting the forum was for discussing only the current Rules as they were sic presently given; another forum refused to allow any discussion of a particular Rule (that umpires were ignoring) declaring it to be “a dead issue” i.e. the Rule would continue to be ignored and no attempt would be made to amend it so that it was no longer ignored, because of the personal opinion of a forum moderator.
In general the umpires who run and/or moderate these forums (and it is generally umpires who control any Rule discussion on them) are happy to discuss the application of the non-contentious Rules (what few there are), but they haven’t any interest at all in changing what they are comfortable with and in the habit of doing. Umpires could not care less that, for example, the rule prohibiting the playing of a free ball, awarded in the opponent’s 23m area, directly into the circle, may be an impediment to game flow. It’s an easy Rule to apply and ease of application appears to be the main criteria, as far as they are concerned, for a ‘good Rule’. They are prepared to discuss the application of ‘interpretation’ (reinforce their own practice) but not the alteration/deletion of a Rule and the replacement of it with an alternative safety measure.
7. What is the procedure for developing a rules change?
(See above)
8. When does a rules change become effective?
Officially the 1 January date applies to all international competitions but National Associations have discretion to decide the implementation date at national level.
That of course applies only to a Rule change published in the Rules of Hockey and applicable to all hockey, but we already have examples of the immediate adoption of changes in Tournament Regulations – which are supposed to apply only to international level hockey – into domestic hockey.
This happened in the case of playing of the ball above shoulder height (August 2013), the change was at once adopted by National Associations for use in National Premier Leagues. (a significantly different version had previously been used in the European Hockey League).
The change to four quarters and timing changes announced for international hockey from September 2014 has already been announced by Hockey India as a change to all domestic Leagues from June 2014. (Four quarters and time stoppage on award of a penalty corner had already been permitted in the European Hockey League and in high level invitation Leagues in India and Australia, but the new proposals include a significant reduction in playing time and time stoppage following the award of a goal) The adoption of ‘Rule’ into domestic hockey, on the basis of an FIH media release outlining a proposed change to Tournament Regulations before the change to Tournament Regulations has been made is ‘jumping the gun’ – and breaking the rules.
9. Are developments in the Rules of Indoor Hockey important?
The Rules of Indoor Hockey are equally important, however, it may not sometimes appear that way because fewer countries take part in indoor hockey. The Rules Committee keeps the rules for each game in step one with the other.
Not quite ‘in step’ hitting the ball is not permitted in indoor hockey nor is the raising of the ball with any stroke except when shooting at the goal. In the outdoor game players are permitted to dive or slide on the ground when tackling – an action forbidden to all but the goalkeepers in indoor hockey (that prohibition could sensibly be adopted in the outdoor game, but that might reduce the “excitement” i.e. the danger, of the outdoor game).
10. Who is ultimately responsible for rules changes?
The Rules Committee comes to a conclusion about any changes it considers desirable and prepares a report for the Executive Board of the FIH. The Executive Board will either agree the change or refer it back for further consideration by the Rules Committee;
the Executive Board cannot directly amend a proposed change.
Thus the ultimate responsibility rests with the Executive Board.
Summary
The FIH Executive Board have the power to approve or to veto any Rule proposal submitted by the FIH Rules Committee. Only the Rules Committee have the authority to draft and submit a Rule proposal and supply interpretation for approval by the Executive Board and inclusion in the Rules of Hockey. No other FIH group or committee nor any individual FIH Official has the authority to draft a Rule or provide official interpretation (or declare any current Rule to be not a Rule)
Because the above statement is generally ignored the Rules of Hockey are in a shambles.
Not many of the stated aims of the FIH Rules Committee are achieved, largely because others within the FIH prevent them being achieved. For an example look at the events surrounding the deletion of the ‘gained benefit’ exception clause, it makes an interesting case study.
See article UnDeletion http://wp.me/pKOEk-1xB
About Martin Conlon
For new readers Martin Conlon is the author of the blog website, ‘The Rules of Hockey – Observations and proposals about the rules of field hockey’. Martin A former player (Blackheath HC , Slough HC, Hounslow HC, Surbiton HC, Maidenhead HC, and Lusitanians) former umpire (Surrey Umpires Association), former hockey coach (Cuba to Junior World Cup and Pan American Games), retired but still alive and kicking.
Martin Conlon
Go Hockey News thanks Martin for his ongoing contribution to go Hockey News and his contribution to the game of hockey overall.
