bridge tackling

 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!

[Goalie64]

MMB - as has been said, the defender has to occupy space.

If, as in your examples, you run at (or through them) I would expect FHD, and probably a warning from the umpire to be careful.

If the defender (over the top point here) dives in front of you/blocks the ball with their body etc, then FHA and probable card to them.

[Ridge]

double post justin.

mmb, your speaking as a true forward. my coach would like you, she talks a lot about "forcing the obstruction" which is what your talking about. talking about such things though in the umpiring section though isn't a smart thing. but i do understand where you are coming from.

[birchall]

its a risky tackle but when pulled off its works great. What happened in my case is he hit the ball away to the side and continued running on and over me. I felt it was not my fault. He would be my fault if the ball hit my body or was dragged round, popped over my stick then he came over the top. In that case it would be green and PC. But in that situation and if I had taken the ball clean and he went over it should be FHD. The purpose of this tackle is not to cause the attacker to take evasive action but rather to make him do a wide drag instead of just gathering speed and popping the ball forward or doing a little drag.

[keely]

Ah, but see, that's the issue. Why should the attacker have to "do a wide drag" because your body is in the way, when you're not permitted to play the ball with your body? And what's more, it wasn't like you accidentally fell there, you deliberately threw your body in the way?

[CCG]

MMB - as has been said, the defender has to occupy space.

If, as in your examples, you run at (or through them) I would expect FHD, and probably a warning from the umpire to be careful.

If the defender (over the top point here) dives in front of you/blocks the ball with their body etc, then FHA and probable card to them.

Right, I start on my playing side. I would agree with MMB that, should a defender block a fair run of mine, I would likely take the ball into him delibrately and/or go through him. That's just the way I play, I wouldn't do it to hurt someone but only to give them the "If you try that again and this will happen again next time" so that I gain an upper hand in the game. After all you have to impose yourself. I'm ready for backlash comments on this, but I don't play the game to hurt people I reiterate, but if this allows me an easier game for one action I'd take it, since if they back off it gives me greater chance of scoring.

Watching my School 1st XI I've seen this happen by our CF (who's very competitive and pretty big) and he's won the ball everytime, but you can't do it more than once a game admitted. If not, as in the quote, the expected Card is fully deserved to the attacker.

However, on my umpiring side of things, if it looks delibrately done by the attacker, then FHD without any doubt. If he's bringing the possibility of injury with an amount of intent then a warning as well. If he progresses to do it again, Green, another offence, Yellow and so on. I've seen a game like this on the opposite side though where the defenders were taking out the attackers, and so appreciate both sides of this argument. However, in this case I'd say a FHD without a shadow of a doubt.

[justin]

It's worth saying, IMO, however, that the rules do not specify how 'wide' a player may make himself, provided it is done early enough not to be judged as 'impeding'..... each player is entitled to his bit of the pitch.
If you see a player lying/kneeling on the pitch, you don't have a right to run or play the ball into him....the umpires will decide whether it's legal

[67726]

As a forward I love to see defenders setup, when they stand still so easy to run around, jink over the stick & you’re off. Most good defenders don't bridge tackle, they jab, channel you, set you up and then hammer you when you’re in the position they want you.

[birchall]

Ah, but see, that's the issue. Why should the attacker have to "do a wide drag" because your body is in the way, when you're not permitted to play the ball with your body? And what's more, it wasn't like you accidentally fell there, you deliberately threw your body in the way?

Because I feel an attacker who has pace shouldn't be able to run straight through me with a little dink behind me and collect it the other side. As a defender I feel this is unfair and benefits the attackers hugley. It seems that when an attacker uses his body to block you from the ball it is legal but when a defender dosen't lie down to an attacker on the burst and tries to cause them to go around you and not through you its punished hard.

As a forward I love to see defenders setup, when they stand still so easy to run around, jink over the stick & you’re off. Most good defenders don't bridge tackle, they jab, channel you, set you up and then hammer you when you’re in the position they want you.

No doubt about it, I completely agree but this when the attacker has pace and if they get the ball around, behind you they have beaten you as they are running and you have to turn and accelerate.

[keely]

It seems that when an attacker uses his body to block you from the ball it is legal but when a defender dosen't lie down to an attacker on the burst and tries to cause them to go around you and not through you.

So what, this is some kind of revenge rules breaking?

Sorry, but I'd yellow card and upgrade the call to a PC (if available) against you every time if you laid down in front of the ball.

[birchall]

So what, this is some kind of revenge rules breaking?

Sorry, but I'd yellow card and upgrade the call to a PC (if available) against you every time if you laid down in front of the ball.

It's not laying down in front of the ball its a technique thats quite common in high level hockey in Oceania but i feel umpires often ule it unfairly.

edited

[67726]

It's not laying down in front of the ball its a technique that's quite common in high level hockey in Oceania but incompetent umpires like you rule wrong often.

Strong words, but I feel sure it is not always so black & white. I am sure that Keely would blow it how she see's it.
As with all  these types of questions you can only picture them in your head, and what I think the situation is may be can be vastly different from what you think!!!!

[Neo]

Birchall, I'd suggest you edit your previous post and undo the unwarranted comment.  Apart from earning Keely's wrath, you have potentially offended skilled players in au & nz as well.

FWIW, there's enough discussion pointing out that the context is so important to how such a tackle would be interpreted, that it makes it a risky action to take. Forcing obstruction - {a "lesser" skill IMHO} is something that I think the umpiring fraternity would prefer to see less of, and with the new experimental rules, less opportunity for it to be used.

[birchall]

sorry its just something i believe in. i feel hockey has become too non-contact where one cannot gain an advantage over someone by getting in a strong body position and using strength, much like in the non-contact sport of soccer. If an attacker can beat a player by getting the ball through them, jinking etc. It should be legal to make a tackle where if they do this you get the ball forcing them to go around you and out wide if they are to beat you. A smart hockey player on the run will see this tackle and go round them with little trouble but a less adapted player or one with lesser skills will plough right into the tackle losing the ball and possibly into the player. They traveled into the player with their own momentum. It is umpired with good umpires but poorly with bad or inexperianced one.

IT IS NOT LYING DOWN IN FRONT OF THE BALL. People who say this haven't seen it done and don't know/understand it. It's hard to explain and tough to pull off but when done right is a great tackle that causes turnovers on an attacking burst/

[birchall]

I will be able to tell you... was it Mr Bownsey or Mrs Michelson???

No mate, their good umpires, It was the two umpires who operate at Kings. Possibly the worst two umpires I have ever come across. They were responsible for that St.Kents vs Kings match which ended with St.Kents walking off the turf. Anytime we made a slightly hard tackle in our own 23 (and once out of it) it was given as PC, some which shouldn't have even warrenteed a FHA.

[Diligent]

Thanks for the edit Birchall.

This comment, when the topic reopened, says it all:

Its a risky tackle but when pulled off it works great.

It's a risky tackle because when it breaks down play it's a PC and the team plays with one less.

That's not unfair, or bad umpiring, or whatever - it's what 'risk' involves.