Martin Condon
Go Hockey News is pleased to introduce a guest umpiring writer. His name is Martin Condon fir . Martin is a former English 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 writing.
Martin is the writer and editor of the blog, http://martinzigzag.wordpress.com/ The blog is mainly about the Rules of Hockey and is written primarily for those who are already familiar with the FIH Rules Committee publication. It does not pretend to be the Rules of Hockey – which may be found here:- http://www.fih.ch/en/sport/rules; but offers suggestions that, hopefully, may improve the Rules and Guidance, and interpretation of them, and thereby the game for players, umpires and spectators.
This article is written for umpiring enthusiasts who like a challenge. Rule interpretations are part and parcel of the hockey game. However the decision rests with first of all having rule knowledge and understanding then great insight into the ability to apply the rules to specific incidents. Martin presents two incidents in June 2013 from the London Final, between Australia and England. If you take up the challenge then read Martin’s interpretation below and then offer your own feedback using the comments box.
DESCRIPTION OF INCIDENTS UNDER REVIEW
Player hit with the ball. Is it dangerous play or Breach of Rule 9.11 Ball/body contact.
A] Watch video 1
This video seems very straightforward but it is a good example of the conflicts between common practice and the Rules of Hockey.
The players and umpires seemed happy that the defending player was five meters from the ball. I am not sure what the Australian player was attempting to do but she appears to have raised the ball (to that height) accidentally, so no offence. (She may have been trying to lift it past the defender at below knee height, but the stroke seems to have been accepted as a complete accident). The defender is obviously positioned with the intention of stopping the ball with her stick if she can, all the normal caveats concerning acceptance of risk when engaged in a potentially dangerous game apply.
The game was restarted with a Free-ball to the England team. Why? What criterion did the umpire use to determine that the raised ball had been raised dangerously? Silly question?
Lets put the same incident into an open-play context with both players positioned in the defender’s circle with
a) the defender positioned seven meters into the circle and a goalkeeper in-back of her position and
b) the defender defending the goal on the goal-line, a little more than five meters away from the shooter.
Decision in case a)? Why?
Decision in case b)? Why?
Is there any reason given in the Rules of Hockey why the decision in all three of the above scenarios should not be the same?
B] Watch video 2
If a player, in any area outside of the circle her team was attacking, hit the ball directly into an opponent’s legs from less than 2 metres without making any attempt to go around the opponent or to avoid her, would you expect that attacker to be awarded a Free-ball? Why?
The introduction of a definition of a dangerously, as a ball propelled at a player at high velocity and at above elbow height, would give an umpire clear criterion for penalising the accidentally raised ball in the first incident as dangerous play. Such criterion does not exist at the moment. But then the same criterion would have to be applied in all parts of the pitch, because it would be wholly unreasonable to say that such a raised ball was dangerous in the mid-field areas but not in the circles or not when a shot at the goal was being made – wouldn’t it?
This has to be asked :- Why is the subjective judgement of dangerous play, that is the judgement made by an umpire independent of objective criterion, different in different parts of the pitch, when the actions (by both players) look to be exactly the same in each case? Logically and for consistency with decisions usually made in such circumstances within the circle, the England player ought to have been penalised for playing the ball with her body – but that would of course make no sense at all – be contrary to a ‘common sense’ of fair play.
Propelling the ball into the feet/legs of a close player in a reckless way is actually more difficult to Rule for now that forcing has been “transferred to ‘other Rules’ ” and reference to reckless play has been removed from Rule 9. Conduct of Play. All that is left is intimidation and (presented on the opening page of the rule book) the admonishment that players must play with consideration for the safety of others; (which is a joke when undercutting the ball into the legs of an outrunning defender during a penalty corner – deliberately or not -will be ‘rewarded’ with a mandatory penalty corner). I can’t see which Rule the defender is supposed to have breached in the second incident: she is clearly trying to play the ball with her stick and just as clearly trying to avoid foot/ball contact, so why the award of a penalty corner to her opponents?
I look forward to your interpretation and thoughts.
Martin Condon
http://martinzigzag.wordpress.com/
