An umpire making the decision to allow the playing of advantage is not always an easy decision to make. In this article International umpiring bloggiest Martin Conlon investigates the critical difference between “Play on (no offence)” and playing ‘Advantage’ following a ball-body contact that is an offence. Like all of Martin’s articles he ‘unpacks’ the rules of hockey that pertains to the investigation in a decisive manner which is a must read for the serious umpire.
The related Rules and/or Explanation of application.
Rule 9.11. Explanation of application.
It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field player. The player only commits an offence if they gain an advantage or if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way.
The above explanation is current and not as it was in 2014 when this match was played. At the time the criteria for offence were a voluntarily made contact or positioning with the intention of stopping the ball with the hand, foot or body. The previous ‘gains benefit’ criterion was deleted from the Rules of Hockey by the FIH Rules Committee on issue of the 2007-9 Rule book in January 2007. However, Mr. Peter von Reth over-ruled the FIH Rules Committee in February 2007 (an impossibility but it happened) and insisted that ‘gains benefit’ continue to be applied as it was in 2006. So although ‘gains benefit’ (as the present “gain an advantage”) was not restored to the Rules of Hockey until January 2015, umpires who wanted to progress did as they were told by Mr. von Reth in the intervening eight years – and what the top level umpires were doing was carried by ‘cascade’ to all other levels. The incident in the video can therefore be examined as if current Rule (gain an advantage) should have been applied to it as well as the Explanation extent at the time (voluntarily made contact) because that was what was happening.
12.1 Advantage : a penalty is awarded only when a player or team has been disadvantaged by an opponent breaking the Rules.
(”breaking the Rules” is a neat bit of ambiguity introduced apparently with the intention of fudging the distinction – which was previously very clear – between an offence and a breach of Rule which was not an offence, because it did not meet the criteria for offence. This whole confusing mess arises from the deletion of the word ‘intentionally’ from the Rule Proper).
The MAS player hit with the ball did not commit an offence but he was in breach of the Rule – a ridiculous situation created by a long sequence of deletions and additions to both the Rule Proper and the Explanation of application (or Guidance) since the 1980’s (one of which required, in the Rule Proper, that there be a deliberate ball-body contact and in what was at the time called the Guidance, an advantaged gained by the contact – none of various versions produced by the HRB/FIH RC made the slightest difference to the way umpires ‘interpreted’ ball-body contact – and that continues to be the case).
12.3 A penalty corner is awarded :
a] for an offence by a defender in the circle which does not prevent the probable scoring of a goal
There was no offence
2.2 Advantage :
a it is not necessary for every offence to be penalised when no benefit is gained by the offender ; unnecessary interruptions to the flow of the match cause undue delay and irritation.
There was no offence to penalise but had the MAS player intentionally made contact with the ball in this incident (an offence) then ‘advantage’ could have been played
I have posted the relevant part of the match video, with commentary, exactly as it was posted to YouTube within the full match video so that the comments and opinions of the umpires as well as the commentators may be known. What is obvious is that everybody accepted or believed that the ball-foot contact by the MAS player was an offence, when it clearly was not, meeting none of the criteria for an offence. The contact was not made voluntarily. The MAS team did not gain an advantage from the contact, they were in fact disadvantaged because of it, the ball being slowed and deflected so that it was easily collected by the second ESP player.
The MAS player did not position with the intention of using his foot to stop or deflect the ball – he was in fact surprised by the deflection off the stick of the ESP player in front of him when the ESP player failed to control the ball and could not avoid being hit with it.
So despite what he said he did the match umpire did not give or allow an advantage, he could not have done so because there was no offence, he in fact simply allowed play to continue because there was no reason for him to intervene. He could perhaps have usefully called out “No offence-play on”.
