Advice on Sliding Tackle not making contact

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

[redumpire]

Now we've cleared that up (I think!), can I raise a side issue (and I think we've discussed this before but can't find it anywhere)?

Is the fact that a player's actions endanger him/herself sufficient reason to show a card?   I fully accept that a player should not endanger others, but that's not the same thing.  I also accept that a dangerous action may result in a foul (e.g. a sliding tackle that blocks the path of the ball).  However, theoretically speaking, can you (should you?) card a player who endangers him/herself but does not endanger or "inconvenience" anyone else?

[mani]

No - because then you'd have to card every No1 runner and person on a line at PCs.

If youre sticking to the wording for the rule - then their actions are endangering themselves - so you'd have to card them.

[Goalie64]

I agree with Mani.

As an example, if you had a new player who kept attempting to tackle "from the wrong side" and as a consequence was nearly getting their head knocked off, I would have a word with them (and possibly their captain) to warn them of the danger they are putting themselves in.

I suppose, if they kept doing it I might have to think again, but would perhaps ask the captain to sub them (if possible) rather than disadvantage the team by making them play a man down.

Ultimately their safety has to be their own responsibility.

[keely]

Most of the "self-endangerment" scenarios I can think of likely involve a foul to another. With Goalie64's example, a player tackling from a position where they are likely to get hit (as there is no wrong side, just poor positioning and technique) is often impeding the player in possession of the ball or obstructing them.

Other than mani's examples on the PC, what other ways can a player put themselves in danger without committing another foul?

[redumpire]

That's why I used the word "theoretically" Keely, because I couldn't think of any!

FWIW, I agree with Mani & Goalie64 that you can't give a card to a player for endangering him/herself.  Here are the rules that cover dangerous play:

9.2 Players on the field must hold their stick and not use it in a dangerous way.

9.3 Players must not touch, handle or interfere with other players or their sticks or clothing.

9.4 Players must not intimidate or impede another player.

9.8 Players must not play the ball dangerously or in a way which leads to dangerous play.

9.9 Players must not intentionally raise the ball from a hit except for a shot at goal.

9.13 Players must not tackle unless in a position to play the ball without body contact.

9.17 Players must not throw any object or piece of equipment onto the field, at the ball, or at another player, umpire or person.

There's nothng there that says that a player cannot endanger themselves...  I suppose you could impute such a prohibition on from the over-arching words in the "Responsibility and Liability" section at the front of the Rule Book (page 2 in the 2007-2008 version), where it says:

Players must ensure that their equipment does not constitute a danger to themselves or to others by virtue of its quality, materials or design

but just before that sentence it says:

Emphasis is placed on safety. Everyone involved in the game must act with consideration for the safety of others.

I think I'd struggle to justify giving a card to someone who has endangered themselves but not hurt or inconvenienced anyone else were I ever to find myself having to do so...

[Twister]

I suppose there is the detterent factor to consider - you might wish to give a card to discourage others from copying the self endangering action that a player has taken.  That way you send a clear message to anyone else on the pitch / watching, that this is not acceptable.

But it's a fine line.

[Kilmory]

No - because then you'd have to card every No1 runner and person on a line at PCs.
If youre sticking to the wording for the rule - then their actions are endangering themselves - so you'd have to card them.

Sorry, which rule is this? Still can't find anything in the rule book that says you can endanger yourself by playing within the rules.

Red has saved me the trouble of finding the rules on dangerous play again, so perhaps you could point out which one applies?

You can hardly equate a reckless feet first sliding tackle with legitimately taking up space on a hockey field?

Perhaps we should just card every player who attempts a drag flick? It wasn't dangerous this time, but it might be next time?

[CardWaver]

No - because then you'd have to card every No1 runner and person on a line at PCs.
If youre sticking to the wording for the rule - then their actions are endangering themselves - so you'd have to card them.

Sorry, which rule is this? Still can't find anything in the rule book that says you can endanger yourself by playing within the rules.

Red has saved me the trouble of finding the rules on dangerous play again, so perhaps you could point out which one applies?

You can hardly equate a reckless feet first sliding tackle with legitimately taking up space on a hockey field?

Perhaps we should just card every player who attempts a drag flick? It wasn't dangerous this time, but it might be next time?

Re: SELF ENDANGERMENT :The rule in question comes from the unofficial guide to the PC ( All defenders are asking to be hit version)
The only reason that a defender is in danger at a PC is because some idiot thinks it is ok to aim at them, so how come plenty of apparently sane people still think that it is the defender who creates danger simply by standing on the pitch where the rules tell him to 
( And yes I know is is the classic circular argument where we retreat to our respective camps and lob rocks at the 'others'- still makes me mad though)
Card Waver

[CardHappy]

Thanks for the responses, as per usual you really had to be there to fully understand the situation but having read the responses and having had time to think about it on balance I think I got the decision right (sorry CH).  The difficulty is selling a decision such as this because it is essentially a card based on your perception of the potential and actual dangers of the tackle rather than an obvious and blatant offence. 

The point the coach was trying to make was that I would have to yellow card every slide on the hockey pitch as there is always going to be some inherent danger with that type of tackle. There was a complete lack of understanding or an unwillingness to understand the thought process which I had went through and with tackles such as these we deal with them on the danger they cause to themselves or others and their ability to play the ball in a legal manner. 

Hey, no problems... I'll just chalk it down to yet another one wrong!!   

The interesting question is what would you have done if that tackle was the first in the game? Would it still be yellow?

[foozbear]

Thanks for the responses, as per usual you really had to be there to fully understand the situation but having read the responses and having had time to think about it on balance I think I got the decision right (sorry CH).  The difficulty is selling a decision such as this because it is essentially a card based on your perception of the potential and actual dangers of the tackle rather than an obvious and blatant offence. 

The point the coach was trying to make was that I would have to yellow card every slide on the hockey pitch as there is always going to be some inherent danger with that type of tackle. There was a complete lack of understanding or an unwillingness to understand the thought process which I had went through and with tackles such as these we deal with them on the danger they cause to themselves or others and their ability to play the ball in a legal manner. 

Hey, no problems... I'll just chalk it down to yet another one wrong!!   

The interesting question is what would you have done if that tackle was the first in the game? Would it still be yellow?

YUP....

nothing in the rules says you cant go back to greens for any other offence. (that I have found anyway) Even if the offence occurs again in the 60th minute....depending on the play...it may still only warrent a green or yellow.

EVERY offence must be officiated without prejuduce to whats gone before, UNLESS the offence is repeating out of control.