Penalty Stroke at Full Time

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

 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!

[glossevans]

Hadn't realised that.

Well there you go - every day's a school day!

[glossevans]

So how about this scenario.

Ball is injected, passes outside circle, brought back in and flicked low (less than six inches off ground) towards goal. Keeper saves with kicker and re-bounds ball straight back to attacker who took first flick. Could this attacked now 'hit' the ball into the roof of the net to score a goal?

My first reaction is yes he could and it would stand as a goal - but from what you've just posted, now I'm not sure.

There is probably another rule that this scenario brings in tho that we haven't discussed.

[redumpire]

Just to be absolutely clear on this: neither a PC in normal time, nor one at the end of a half, is over just because the ball touches a defender's stick.

Why not have a quick glance through the full rule book, gloss?  You'll be amazed how many things you'll learn!  It's available on-line here.

[philthy]

So how about this scenario.

Ball is injected, passes outside circle, brought back in and flicked low (less than six inches off ground) towards goal. Keeper saves with kicker and re-bounds ball straight back to attacker who took first flick. Could this attacked now 'hit' the ball into the roof of the net to score a goal?

My first reaction is yes he could and it would stand as a goal - but from what you've just posted, now I'm not sure.

There is probably another rule that this scenario brings in tho that we haven't discussed.

Yes he could - because it's not the first shot at goal - the first shot was the flick

But it's still part of the PC because none of the "ending a PC" scenarios have happened; so you couldn't, for example, make a substitution.

[Diligent]

Yes glossevans, the rebound is a subsequent shot and there is no height restriction on a hit shot.

And sorry to glossevans and others on the board right now - I got some Rules/dates wrong and he asked the question just as I deleted the post for a rewrite. This is what it should have been.

It's strange how an experimental Rule that only lasted one year (1 Jan to 31 Dec 2004) should survive so long in the minds of so many participants?

I thought that a 'normal' PC was deemed as over or complete once a defender had played the ball?
I have no problem in putting my hand up and saying that there is a possibility I might be wrong.
Just to clarify (for my understanding) an 'overtime' PC is not over when a defender plays the ball?

This is an even more persistent survivor. 2001 Rule 15.2.1 k "if the first shot at goal is a hit, the ball must cross the goal-line..." below "... 460mm for a goal to be scored, unless it touches the stick or body of a defender". But still 2001 15.2.1.n is "if the ball travels more than 5 metres from the circle, the PC Rules no longer apply" with no mention of defenders.

Actually we need to go back to 1986 (before the first hit below 18 inches Rule came in) Rule 15(d) "No shot at goal shall be made until the ball be stopped on the ground or touch the stick or person of a defender".

Over the last year I've had "a defender touched it so the PC is over" quoted at me by a player and two coaches. 

[Kilmory]

that was my last season....this season I SHOUT "NOT OUT" if it not gone out...if it goes out after that...I SHOUT "ITS GOOD".

Is this not 'coaching' the attacking team? I would be most upset if you helped the attacking team in a PC I was defending. If they want to shoot at goal when they can't score then let them. I bet they only waste one PC like that!

[Grumpy]

That is interesting an umpire and friend who after allowing a goal from the sc in which the ball had never left the circle. After the goal had won the match i asked him why he allowed the goal he stated that as soon as an opponent had touched the ball the ball did not have to hit the back board from an initial shot. The ball was roofed off the goalkeepers helmet.
In a junior european tournamnet last year the same situation arose and a goal was given. I also checked at a university tournament last season and again that is how the td read the rules.
This may not be correct but it does show that getting clarification before a match or a tournament is essential.
I just think this shows no matter how we try to avoid anomalies in the rules do occur and it is no ones fault.

[controller]

that was my last season....this season I SHOUT "NOT OUT" if it not gone out...if it goes out after that...I SHOUT "ITS GOOD".

Is this not 'coaching' the attacking team? I would be most upset if you helped the attacking team in a PC I was defending. If they want to shoot at goal when they can't score then let them. I bet they only waste one PC like that!

Possibly but I don't think so in my opinion, using the voice is an important part of umpiring and playing on in advantage sense of the game

[Grumpy]

If an umpire shouted not out, i would be thinking i was partaking in the most boring game in the world 'cricket'.

[johnreiss]

I wrote a comprehensive reply to this post last night and then accidentally deleted it - damn Pino Grigio!

Anyway, everything seems to have been covered now, apart from controller's question 3 and two issues that are real bugbears of mine!

To deal with controller's question 3: I have no idea what the home team should do, mate!  Part of me says they should just suck it up and get on with worrying about next week's game; but if they really thought that the umpire was "cheating" (and I know that's not a word that you've used controller, quite rightly as it's one hell of an accusation) then they should report it through the appropriate official channels.  As for how they should control their players: with respect they should know that already; if the captain can't do that, get a new captain.

And my bugbears.

1. It does not have to be a "goalscoring opportunity" for a PS to be awarded. One of the situations in which a PS can be awarded is if an offence (either intentional or unintentional) stops the probable scoring of a goal (12.4.a); but an intentional offence by a defender anywhere in the D which denies an attacker actual possession or an opportunity to play the ball is a PS whether or not it is a goal scoring opportunity (12.4.b).  So in this instance, even if the ball had not gone outside the D and the attacker had a shot and the GK then deliberately lay on the ball it should be a PS as he (the GK) is denying the attack the opportunity to play the ball.  The fact that they cannot score is irrelevant if you deem the GK's actions to be intentional.  Which leads me to...

2. Under the FIH rules (and I know it's different in NCAA etc.) it is not an offence to shoot at goal if the ball has not gone outside the D at a PC.  The rule says "A goal cannot be scored [from a PC] until the ball has travelled outside the circle" (13.3.j).  It does not say "A shot at goal cannot be made until the ball has travelled outside the circle."  Anyone who says anything different is, I'm afraid, just plain wrong.

I'll get down from this rickety soap box now...   


I agree wholeheartedly that to give a PS,  the foul does not have to prevent a goal only prevent possession or likely possession.  The OP does not state why the ump gave the stroke:  if the foul ll was deemed deliberate AND denying possession  then I suppose a PS is possible BUT as with all (?)  deliberate fouls they do deny a SCORING OPPORTUNITY to the attack..  In this scenario there was no opportunity to score as if there was no foul the attacker fouled coudn't have scored.  I know this sounds Irish, (no racism intended) ), but I think/hope you appreciate what I am getting at.   

[keely]

John - start typing after the "backslash+quote in square brackets" thingy (or just use the REPLY button) - please!

BUT as with all (?)  deliberate fouls they do deny a SCORING OPPORTUNITY to the attack..  In this scenario there was no opportunity to score as if there was no foul the attacker fouled coudn't have scored.

If that were the case, John, then both instances would not be separately listed under the rules. It's also for the pedants out there who could justify NOT awarding a PS because, for example, the defender who pushes an attacker's teammate to the ground so they can't possibly get the rebound from the shot the attacker was about to take doesn't deny a scoring opportunity because the attacker in possession of the ball was still fully able to take their shot.

Absolutely no need to make this issue more complicated than it already is!

[redumpire]

but I think/hope you appreciate what I am getting at.   

Sorry John, but I genuinely don't.  Your post thoroughly confused me. 

I think what you're saying is if there's no foul by the defence then it can't be a PS, but I don't see what that adds to the discussion.  If we were playing a handling game with an oval ball and 15 players on each side it would be rugby union, but it isn't...

[foozbear]

that was my last season....this season I SHOUT "NOT OUT" if it not gone out...if it goes out after that...I SHOUT "ITS GOOD".

Is this not 'coaching' the attacking team? I would be most upset if you helped the attacking team in a PC I was defending. If they want to shoot at goal when they can't score then let them. I bet they only waste one PC like that!

Possibly but I don't think so in my opinion, using the voice is an important part of umpiring and playing on in advantage sense of the game

controller is correct...

using your voice more than your whistle can make you a better umpire. it allows the players to know whats going on and what your seeing at the time.

we use our voice to call players 5 yards....to tell them make sure thats a metre....if you close enough to the drop of an aerial ball warning the encroaching player within 5 yards.

if you simply blow a whistle without using your voice first at these instances the players may geta  sense of "oh he is a mean umpire" if you call them a few times and they still dont get it...then you penalise em they have less to complain about.

also if your using your voice more in a game it can relax you....helps you make the decision.

when things get tense from the teams as the clock is running out I start talking more....i saw things like...tackles good....advantage..you got it..play on.

the players are responding well to the voice and it makes my job so much easier.

even on PC...first one...i tell everyone that whole foot outside the lines please....injector has to have both feet on either side of the line.....(of course this is if they are breaching in anyway. if they arent breaching I assume they know the rules well enough) strangly I had this in my rec games umpiring and no-one complained about me saying..hey make sure both feet are over the line. when they fouled later in the game the player knew what he had done and looked rather embarassed.

as to the the reply about calling NOT OUT advantaging the attackers....it also advantaging the defenders....if they know its not out they can adjust their defence accordingly....

the voice does not influence either side....it is a commentary for both teams to understand the play.

im sure Keely would finally agree with me on one thing and that voice more= whistle less.

[philthy]

I agree that using your voice for things like "make sure you're 5" is a good idea

But play's not actually live at that point. That's just avoiding "gotcha" umpiring.

I think that saying "Not Out" on a PC is too much. The umpire's not there to coach, they're there to officiate. Who knows - it might be part of a routine to not bring the ball out of the D on the initial injection. Maybe the plan is to catch the defence off guard by keeping it in the D and then slipping it left or right out of the D?
It's not the umpire's place to call at that point.

[controller]

I know I do it as a memory point for me when umpiring that the ball from PC not left the circle, it will also help when they do score and everyone has heard it, in regard to coaching and basically cheating in my view to confuse and disable the defence by doing so can be unsportsmanlike in my eyes but then that is why umpire at club level now.