2007/8 Rules of Hockey Briefing and Guidance for Umpires now published

NicfromSweden 13
mani 8
bigmick 6
majwalrus 5
JiMMM 5
serbulator 4
silky 4
johncoxon 4
Gocu 4
kristof 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!

[deegum]

I had interpreted the initial fact situation, as described, as something that would be an obstruction call with the ball being lodged against the GK

  ??
FHB? he obstructed the ball when it wsa trying to enter the goal>



 

[boundy]

sorry about dragging this up again, but I thought it would be better than starting a new thread.

Have there been any further clarifications to the rules?

And would umpires be offended if a player pulled out the "briefing and guidance for umpires" sheet if they had made a wrong descision?

And lastly, do any English players know if the rules come in on 1 Jan 2007, or for the start of the 2007/2008 season, or is it done league by league?

[David_Underdown]

England Hockey has said that the rules come into effect on 1/1/07 and I don't believe any league has "optd-out" of this (it's confusing enough as it is).

I think it would be better to try and talk the new rules before the game, e.g. when captains and umpires meet for the toss, rather than wait for something to happen.  Even if you've both read the briefing, there's no gurantee you'll agree on how to apply it if the meeting of Surrey HUA we had on Saturday is anything to go by...

[Sloth]

following this digression.
Ok, agreed the need to blow anticipating danger.
 starting with a bully is a pain.
Remaining options. PC, FHD.
PC: Fairly severe penalty for someone who has been completely within  the rules.
FHD: fairly minor penalty for someone who has been suspected of dangerous intentions.

Seriously I know why it is done, just that the incorrect option is chosen.

I don't necessarily agree, it may depend on the situation

FHD: fairly severe penalty for someone suspected of dangerous intentions (but not proven), who actually was going to drag the ball out and shoot over/around the prone GK...whom at this stage would start thrashing around and make contact with the attackers stick either with their own stick or with with their arm and give away the PC anyway....

well at least that's my story...
If it's my GK then FHD...if it's my attacker PC...how's that for consistency :D

[subtlegoalie]

This might sound like a stupid comment but the I found the image hilarious... :D

In one of my matches I deflected a ball onto my LHP (it was a obo yahoo one) and because of the curve in it I sort of caught the ball, I tossed it over the back line for a corner and it was left at that but is there anything to stop goalie's catching or lifting a ball onto their LHP and running to edge of the D and throwing or passing it to a defender or midfielder? It's not stuck in their equpiment but could it be blown for that anyway?

[justin]

This might sound like a stupid comment but the I found the image hilarious... :D

In one of my matches I deflected a ball onto my LHP (it was a obo yahoo one) and because of the curve in it I sort of caught the ball, I tossed it over the back line for a corner and it was left at that but is there anything to stop goalie's catching or lifting a ball onto their LHP and running to edge of the D and throwing or passing it to a defender or midfielder? It's not stuck in their equpiment but could it be blown for that anyway?

Yes it is hilarious, but now add an attacker attempting to 'tackle' the ball-carrying keeper, with a (not-so)well-timed baseball swing... not so hilarious, I'd suggest.
What's to 'stop' you doing it?... nothing but the umpire's whistle..... I'd treat it the same way I've dealt with players who try to 'carry' or bounce the ball on their sticks, with a FH against, for 'conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace in somebody's head' 

[zippytime]

would you blow for a free hit if a player carried the ball for a couple of seconds as they went past another player before returning the ball to the ground

[justin]

Not if I thought it was safely done.

What used to, occasionally but rarely, annoy me while playing for lower teams in my 'twilight years' (!) was that I might do something 'clever' and the umpire would assume it was accidental and penalise me for 'dangerous play'  (

I once received a hard-hit pass while facing my own goal, but crouched fairly low, with opponents to my right and left... rather than turn with the ball I angled my stick so the ball went over my head, and I turned, safely avoiding a tackle from either side!
I was highly impressed, but the umpire wasn't  :'(

[boundy]

This might sound like a stupid comment but the I found the image hilarious... :D

In one of my matches I deflected a ball onto my LHP (it was a obo yahoo one) and because of the curve in it I sort of caught the ball, I tossed it over the back line for a corner and it was left at that but is there anything to stop goalie's catching or lifting a ball onto their LHP and running to edge of the D and throwing or passing it to a defender or midfielder? It's not stuck in their equpiment but could it be blown for that anyway?

With the current laws I would have thought that should be a PF for the way you used your LHP.

With the new rules I would assume you would be blown up for carrying the ball as there is no safe way for the attacker to tackle you without putting you in danger. No idea what the call should be though. And I think the rules also say you are limited in how far you can propel the ball with your hands so you can not launch it down the pitch.

Also don't the ammendments say that you can only use your hands to deny a goal scoreing opportunity, I think this mean deflecting, pushing or hitting the ball away, not picking it up!

[Cascadia]

Bah, I am reviving this post, because I am very, very confused at the moment... (and I don't think my post warrants a new topic)

I read the briefing here and specifically these words: "It is not considered dangerous to use the forehand edge of the stick in the other ways described", those other ways being:

    * in a controlled action in a tackle (i.e. not swinging or sweeping)
    * raising the ball in a controlled way over an opponent's stick or over a goalkeeper lying on the ground
    * using a long pushing motion (i.e. not sweeping, which is a hit, not a push) along the ground


So, in sum, you can't use the forehand edge in a sweep hit. I think that had the wording simply omitted "hard" and said "players must not hit the ball on the forehand with the edge of the stick", given that a sweep has always been considered a hit (think of the first shot on the PC), that would have gotten the job done.

Does that help?

I thought that I understood this rule, and what Keely said seemed to confirm my knowledge, but then, as I was looking through some of the umpiring resources listed through the umpiring section, I came across this:

http://www.umpirehockey.com/umpirehockey/artman2/publish/Helpful_Videos_16/Legal_and_Illegal_Forehand_Edge_113.shtml

Is it just me, or does the "legal" forehand edge hit not conflict with the above definition? It's still a sweep, is it not? Or is this video outdated (don't see why it should be, since it's only 4 months old - why would they post it if it wouldn't comply with the rules that would take effect 2 months later?). I would've blown both hits in the video before, and now my head just hurts...

...Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

[zippytime]

Cascadia in my opinion I would take that video with a pitch of salt, throw it over your shoulder and forget about it, both techniques shown are illegal.  The rules says you can push it over a long distance they do not say you are allowed to hit it the first part of the video shows the ball being hit(Slap hit now being defined as a hit in the rules) and the ball is propelled hard as we can see it going off very quickly when it is being hit.

I think the confusion comes from the rules saying "when using a long pushing motion along the ground."  people obviously do not realise that also in the rules a push is defined as "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."  many people including the people involved in making this video are obviously unaware of the correct wordings of the rules.

I hope this helps and is correct although if im wrong (which is very rare) Keely will no doubt have me doing lines in detention for the next year after correcting me

[justin]

And I don't know why you'd want to use the edge for a push, as its only advantage appears to be giving extra power to hits.
Pushing is much more controllable with the flat side, IMO.

[nerd_is_the_word]

yeah justin im with you, i cant see myself using the edge for a push.

Actually one of my friends brought this up the other night at training, and i think this almost could be what the FIH ment: in a PC situation a deflection is defeined as being a type of push, a common type of defelction in my city uses the edge to deflect the ball high and hard. Is that illegal? although the ball comes off the stick hard, it really is a kind of push.

Im with my friend in saying that that would be legal, and possibly what the FIH is meaning. I dont know about the rest of you but i have never seen the edge used for a push

[keely]

Cas, I've been in conversations with the owner of the site and Roger Webb of the HRB has reviewed the video and cannot support the visuals as they are presented there because it constitutes a hard hit.

Other than that addition, there will be no detention for Zippy as we're in total agreement.

NITW, if the "deflection" you speak of involves a long sweeping motion along the ground, that's a hit, and illegal. We've had this conversation several times on the forum usually in regards to the "first shot on net on a PC" issue - to me the same criterion applies.

[David_Underdown]

Well, as I see it the thing about a deflection is that the intent is mroe to change the direction (including height) of the ball, rather than impart additional speed - the hardness (i.e. speed0 comes fromt eh oirignal strike, not the deflection .  Sure there may be some movement to the ball, but not so much through the ball as in a hit or push, so yeah,  I don't think a deflection is covered as it is not in itself a hit, and even if there is a slight swing of the stick towards the ball, that movement itself will not be hard.  The diea also seems to have been not to rule out a gentle "dink" over a stick or prone goalie, and indeed to make it clear that tackling was not covered by this rule.