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!

[philthy]

I don't think confusing the defence is unsporting

It's just like dummying a pass or dummying the straight strike while someone else slips it right and hammers it in

You can't possibly believe that attempting to confuse the opposition and catch them off guard is unsporting. Otherwise strikers would be waiting for the keeper to get up from a dive before they play the rebound otherwise "that's not fair, I wasn't ready"

All moves are designed to catch the defence off guard
If you're playing a PC and the defence have got wind of what you're doing - you'll do something else, because it'll confuse them!

Why is not passing the ball out of the circle first time on a PC cheating? Not passing it out and then claiming you did is cheating. Not passing it out first time isn't. How can it possibly be cheating? I'm sorry but I really really don't get your logic on that!

[David_Underdown]

If it clearly hasn't left the circle, there's probably no need to make the call.  It would only really be necessary in the borderline case, where perhaps the attack think it is out, but they actually stopped whilst it wasn't completely over the circle line (without wishing to reopen that particular debate).  I find it difficult to conceive of an occasion where the attack would find it advantageous to not quite let the ball out of the circle, and then deliberately move out it out alittle later (KISS).  Ultimately the judgement of whether it is truely in or out is up to the umpire, so why not let both sides know where you stand?

[keely]

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.

I disagree with this. I see no distinction between telling the players that a ball has traveled outside the circle or, for example, telling them the ball is still in along the sideline or the endline. In addition, this is in no way coaching as you're not instructing what the players should do as a result of your decision whether the ball has passed outside the circle - you're not saying "move the ball outside! Don't shoot!" That would be coaching. What players do with the information you pass along about your decision is their problem.

The idea that somehow you disadvantage the attack because they're intentionally trying to be tricky about their set piece doesn't really fly here. The deception in the play is not that the defenders don't know whether the ball has left the circle, but that they were expecting the ball would leave the circle at that time and it did not. Very different things.

[philthy]

My God. We're disagreeing! We must alert the church elders - it could be heralding the apocalypse! 

To me, there's something very different in the umpire saying the ball hasn't left the D on a PC and saying it's still in when it's on the sideline.
Maybe it's because of the proximity to the goal or the intensity of the PC situation, but to me it's different.

If the umpire says "it's still in" along the sideline - then both teams know the ball's not dead and keep playing.

But saying it's not left the circle on a PC, I don't quite see the point. Neither team's going to stop playing, the defence isn't going to stop defending just because they're not sure if it's left the circle or not, so in a way it only benefits the attack if they hadn't realised it was still in the D.

It's probably the goalie in me, but I think that it's just too much like instruction from the umpire.

[keely]

It must be my weakened state from this cold/flu coming on that's defeated my usual brainwashing powers...

That's alright, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I can see your point, I just think mine's better.

[philthy]

That's weird - because I can see your point, but think mine's better! 

Maybe the mind control does still work!

[justin]

IMO, you are giving information to both teams, which is not, in itself, of greater benefit to either.

The attackers know they cannot score directly, but so do the defenders, and are not tempted to make desperate efforts to save a 'non-scoring shot'.

[controller]

Keely, I thought you were stronger than that to fall for the sympathy vote for you having a cold/flu. 

My logic in regard to it being cheating, I it was my poor grammar that confused, when I am more awake I will post my real ideas for it being cheating.