UmpireHockey.com Names FHF it's Official Forum

AndyGaut 7
IRN BRU 5
keely 5
ragyrascal 5
The.Rampage.Rado 5
shepdogg 4
juveniliahockey 4
JiMMM 4
Bulsara 4
Rutter 3

 The Field Hockey Forum is the resource for players, coaches and umpires of Field Hockey. Join FHF now to have full access to all that we have to offer! Don't be satisfied with lurking when you can interact with thousands of other FHF’rs, take part in Competitions, win Prizes, download Coaching Papers, discover our vast Photo library and get rid of this message - Register Now!

[keely]

There's lots of places on this forum to "add some colour", but this isn't it. A person, new to the forum, who has invested countless hours into his own umpiring website, decides to align himself with another community and bring his traffic along. This very well could be the thread that he's hyperlinked back on his own site to make the announcement and the first thing these newcomers see is a bunch of spam. How useful are they going to think this forum is?

Shep, I don't want to be a killjoy but just look outside yourself for just a second and you'll see that it's just not on in this case. Ok?

[Snoody]

Keely,
More valid observations. As always.   

We should all be proud of this Forum - it's successful, covers a range of topics, is truly international and is self-regulating. Being linked to such a website as umpirehockey.com is acknowledgment that we are all doing something right. We should welcome the link, foster the relationship and work hard to ensure success. We are all after the same thing - the continued success of our sport.

So although I am far from the most angelic when it comes to off-topic postings  I agree with Keely that in this instance we should make every effort to promote the positive side of our FHF.

Snoody

[ExoticShep]

look outside yourself for just a second and you'll see that it's just not on in this case. Ok?

put in my place. do please tell me when i am allowed to do anything again. ever. (by the way, one of the reasons i chose this forum was the fact that, instead of some, it was a fun place where people could express an opinion, get technical help, kit reviews etc, but also have slightly wierd off topic conversations, without everything being about the duller side of the sport)

[keely]

Hey Shep, I totally agree that it's great you can have all kinds of fun conversations - like I said before. And I certainly not saying that you're "not allowed to do anything, ever." But you also agree that FHF is a place to have more serious conversations as well. In order for that to happen, you have to respect that there are better places for serious conversations and better places for "slightly weird off-topic" ones too.

Two rounds of blatant spam on a topic in the Umpiring Corner, the second round coming after someone very politely tried to bring things back on topic again, isn't the right place - don't you agree?

Thanks for considering it.

[ExoticShep]

apologies for all for my childish burst of sour grapes of a few minutes ago (am not great at being told when i am wrong, or out of place, and my natural reaction is to get sarcastic and immature)

[keely]

No worries Shep, appreciate the gracious post. I promise I won't  next time too.

[Cascadia]

I love that smiley, its eyebrows remind me of the guy from the OC (off topic again, I know, but it had to be said!)

Question for Chris: Do you know what the average monthly traffic is for umpirehockey.com? It would be interesting to know how much exposure we actually stand to gain from this!

[UmpireHockey.com]

Question for Chris: Do you know what the average monthly traffic is for umpirehockey.com? It would be interesting to know how much exposure we actually stand to gain from this!

I come to this from a web publishing background in consumer products and because there is such a relatively small number of umpires and because the goals of UmpireHockey.com have never been about traffic, the volume of traffic to the site hasn't been of much interest to me. The impact of a globally available hockey officiating publication that works hard at "getting it" right and describing things in non-FIH/NFHS/NCAA speak has been more important and has proved valuable to many people who have written the site to say so.

I can tell you that when I was counting visitors the number of new people, eh, new IP addresses, that were coming to the site for the first time on any given day was as high as about 50 and more typically about 10. Even then, I wasn't looking at traffic volume just new visitors.

I can also tell you that dozens of sites, including national governing body sites, have links to UmpireHockey.com (I don't think USA Field Hockey is among the sites that link to UmpireHockey.com).

A friend recently introduced me to some free traffic analysis technology that I might employ but, like I indicated, it just isn't a driver so, I'm not terribly interested.

I would like to be able to bring MORE to UmpireHockey.com from OUTSIDE the USA. I have a good sense of what is needed for officiating within the USA but, I'm not particularly close to the issues that need addressing in other parts of the world. Point is, I welcome article submissions aimed at helping to advance hockey by advancing officiating.

Hope that helps...Cris

PS: As I type this, the new lead article on UmpireHockey.com is about naming FHF as UmpireHockey.com's official forum. I plan to expand the article with some details about Steve's efforts here (Steve, see email sent to your gmail account).

[BlackCat]

Perhaps this forum will help sort out some of the erroneous information previously posted on UH.com site (e.g. forehand edge - which I know has already been debated at length already). 

[UmpireHockey.com]

Perhaps this forum will help sort out some of the erroneous information previously posted on UH.com site (e.g. forehand edge - which I know has already been debated at length already). 

BlackCat –

Please substantiate your accusation.

I’d be happy to engage in a dialog that will improve the site and its content.

If your intent is to simply jump at an opportunity make anonymous, backhanded, negative comments void of any substantive information about the site, then perhaps it’s just a personal issue you have with the publisher or your own self-esteem.

Second time someone, perhaps you twice, has made a little smear comment about the site. And, as I basically said the last time, tell me what is wrong with the video (or what erroneous content is) on UmpireHockey.com and I'd be happy to fix it.

Given that I reached out to Roger Webb and he reviewed BOTH articles and BOTH videos about the forehand edge hit PRIOR to publishing, I rather doubt the information about the forehand edge hit is (or was) erroneous.

Months after the publication of the first article and first video, the FIH changed their description of what was to be considered illegal and that caused UmpireHockey.com to have additional conversations with Mr. Webb and update the article and the video.

It was funny though, because after the FIH changed the description a “high status” umpire here in the US took a similar opportunity to whine to USA Field Hockey like a two-year old who didn’t get the toy he/she wanted for Christmas, about how horrible UmpireHockey.com is and held up the video on the forehand edge hit as her/his evidence.

But, I’m sorry, I digress. Please just substantiate your accusation.

Good game…Cris

[keely]

No need to get upset, Cris - all that was said was "erroneous information." Your videos have been extensively discussed earlier in the life cycle of this forum and many posters, including me, agreed that the segment on the forehand edge hit didn't reflect the more widely-held interpretation of the rule.

Please see these threads:

forehand with edge of stick
interesting Youtube stuff

We all get called "wrong" on a regular basis here - it's part of the rigorous discussion. Sometimes, we simply don't reach an agreement as a community.

Hope that helps.

[redumpire]

Cris

I too struggle with that video.  I'll try to explain why.

The rules state as follows:

9.6 Players must not hit the ball hard on the forehand with the edge of the stick.
This does not prohibit use of the edge of the stick on the forehand in a controlled action in a tackle, when raising the ball in a controlled way over an opponent’s stick or over a goalkeeper who is lying on the ground or when using a long pushing motion along the ground.

So there is nothing in the rule that I can see to substantiate the point that your video makes that a hit is allowed if the stick is in close proximity to the ground throughout the swing.  (If that's not the point your video is trying to to make then I apologise, but that's how it comes over to me.)

The rule says that a player can use "a long pushing motion along the ground".  The Terminology section of the rules (on p9) defines a hit and a push thus:

Hit: Striking the ball using a swinging movement of the stick towards the ball.

Push: Moving the ball along the ground using a pushing movement of the stick after the stick has been placed close to the ball. When a push is made, both the ball and the head of the stick are in contact with the ground.

Using those definitions, the action used by the player in your video is, to my mind at least, a long, hard hitting motion along the ground as the stick is swung (albeit along the ground) and is never "placed close to the ball".  The action is, therefore, in my opinion illegal.

If you can prove me wrong on this I'd be quite prepared to change my view, so I'm not being antagonistic.  (Oh and I'm from the UK and have never communicated with USA Field Hockey in my life!)

Best regards,

Red

[UmpireHockey.com]

Thanks Keely and Red.

I read all those other posts including the one where the tackling video was inserted and discussed.

And, Keely, I read where you reported that Roger told you that he thought both "actions" shown in the video would be called illegal.

In discussions I had with Roger he didn't say that though the issue we focused on was that damn word "hard".

So, the video, with all its technical faults (a very cold, very bad camera day, and thanks here to my "model" who was such a willing participant) emphasized the aspect of the action that didn't require "judgment" .. the skill being used was a hit. What made it a hit? The stick LEFT the ground on the backswing. When that happens the umpire doesn't have to judge for "hard".

It is rather difficult to video tape what is "hard" when what is hard is subjective. (Hmm. Sounds like a Bill Clinton story about what is is.)

I think, and I would have to look at the video again, that the video or the accompaning text says (or meant to say) that the sweep action could be legal where as the hitting action could not be. Maybe, I wasn't clear.

BlackCat, I may be a bit sensitive on this particular topic given the bullsh*t that came my way when the FIH changed the wording, but I still feel that your comment was off base. I am here. A forum participant. I identify myself in my posts. I use my real name. My real photo (sorry about that folks). Lofting unsubstantiated comments like that into the air, I would trust, is not an example of you having put your best foot forward.  Perhaps you might have said, "Hey Cris. Thank goodness you're here. It's nice to meet you. I think your video about the forehand edge hit is wrong and here's why..."

And, what really matters is (there's that IS word again) is that probably no one is using the "skill" any more because half the umpires call it one way and then knuckleheads like me have the other half of the umpires calling it the other way. The FIH was very clear on wanting the technique eliminated from the game. Maybe I'll get a medal for adding to the confusion and contributing to the skill's quick exit!

 

But seriously, it really is a dead issue isn't it. What say you BlackCat?

For hockey...Cris

[keely]

And, Keely, I read where you reported that Roger told you that he thought both "actions" shown in the video would be called illegal.

In discussions I had with Roger he didn't say that though the issue we focused on was that damn word "hard".

...

I know, so a colleague and I sent Roger another email for clarification a few months ago and he did say that unless the video was not reflective of the true pace of the stroke (such that it could be a push, rather than a hit), what was shown is illegal.

It is rather difficult to video tape what is "hard" when what is hard is subjective...

I think, and I would have to look at the video again, that the video or the accompaning text says (or meant to say) that the sweep action could be legal where as the hitting action could not be. Maybe, I wasn't clear.

I won't speak for Redumpire here but for me, I understand what you're saying, but your definition of "hard" is not where mine is. Given that the rule provides examples of what "not hard" is - tackling, small motions of the stick to lift the ball over another stick, etc. - the sweep action in my view cannot be legal at all.

This also follows with my experiences at the top level where this the forehand edge is simply not ever used with the sweep hit - it has long been accepted as illegal. As you say, thankfully, the skill appears to be dying a quick death.

The problem is, and I believe this is where BlackCat's own umbrage comes from, is that your video puts itself forward as a very definitive statement. It caused a lot of problems here in Canada when a few select coaches decided to take your video as gospel and cite it in support of arguments that their players should be permitted to use the skill. Keep in mind that all of the senior umpires in Canada (meaning those that would umpire elite programs like national and university competitions) were unanimous in our interpretation, which was significantly different from yours. It took several go-rounds to get it sorted, culminating in one of our FIH Umpires Managers stepping in and declaring that regardless of what your video said, it was illegal and that's the way we would be calling it.

[UmpireHockey.com]

Well, for what it is worth, no one has been in contact with me about the video in the last few months. Keely, I wish you had forwarded me Roger's comments.

Since the site's inception I've demonstrated an absolute willingness to update/correct information on UmpireHockey.com. There has been an easy to reach and use contact link in the upper right corner of every UmpireHockey.com page since the day the site launched.

Keely, perhaps you recall that when you and I traded emails about the video -- apparently before your email exchange with Roger -- you said you had understood the interpretation differently and that you were going to ask about it. I, of course, told you what I had been told.

Your post is the first I've heard about all this with the coaches, and the senior umpires and the FIH Umpires Manager stepping in, etc.

I suppose it just never crossed anyone's mind to contact me, the guy with the video. Heck, someone might have even invited me to join this forum. 

Last I heard from the FIH was that the video was fine. Even many of the words on the scrolls reflect specific edits requested from the FIH (I had wanted to include some copy that might have let on my own "umbrage" about the word "hard" and they asked that it not be quite so, hmm, pointed on that point).

The whole point of publishing videos on UmpireHockey.com, is to help bring MORE consistency to the game, not less. I wish I had the time to shoot more videos. Actually, shooting them is easy. It's the post production work that's the trouble.

It seems to me that we're rather satisfied as a sport with leaving SO MANY UMPIRES OFF THE PAGE about how the game should be called. Then, and I love this, the umpires in-the-know scoff at the poor dullards who didn't get the mid-year course correction memo on this, that or the other thing. AND, then they act like they understood this as if blessed by God rather than what it really was --- having access to an FIH Umpires Manager for example (not talking about you Keely).

My goodness, if anything has been said through the ages about field hockey (and likely all sports) it's, "I just wish the umpires were consistent." Maybe the problem isn't so bad in other countries. With three rule sets, the US has special problems in the area of consistency (we've still got people calling "sticks" because they don't think girls should hit so hard). Video is the great equalizer.

Is it fair to assume that the FIH and the senior umpires in Canada have more video production resources at their disposal than I do? Even if that means they have more access to top level players who are able to demonstrate the "allowed to" and "not allowed to" versions of the skill.

I would have been happy to and stand ready to publish a video from the FIH on this subject but, they didn't publish one. I'd happily post the one from Canada, but they apparently don't have one or I'm sure they would have given to all those unhappy coaches. USA Field Hockey, nope.

The UmpireHockey.com site stands ready to help any umpire anywhere on the planet in communicating to them about something as important as the banning of a widely used action, especially when the wording used to describe it was clearly DISASTEROUS.

I dare say that there has been more discussion around the world about the WORDING than my video.

I think a video of this action is important. The example that Keely gives demonstrates that other people think so too. So desperate the COACHES were to get clarity on what is and isn't illegal that they found a site for UMPIRES!!!!

If you've got a video (or can run out and make one), send it to me. And, please, show examples of what hard is and what hard isn't.

Let's make some better umpires.

--Cris