Aerial passes - changing the rule

 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!

[mani]

Regardless of whether you are in the D, or on the halfway - umpires around the world MUST kick up a fuss and put across your side of things to the HRB that this rule is worded to be a farce and in reality is a bigger farce.

In no other sport in the world does a normal pass require others to back off to allow the receiver 5m grace.
In no other sport does the intended receiver have to be pre-determined from point of pass. And if that intended receiver DOESNT receive the pass, it is a foul! In every other sport an intercept is allowed at ANY point of the game. It is an absolute joke, and is causing players much heartache and head scratching, because the rule is causing umpires even greater headache and head scratching!

Why these rules were brought in i have no idea. No ball travelling in the air from an aerial pass is travelling quick enough to cause any damage. The ball going up has always been a source of danger but in my 24yrs  of playing i have only ever seen 1 person hit on the upward delivery. On the downward drop the ball is nowhere near enough dangerous in terms of ball speed, and because the trajectory is known, the only problem should be the skill level of the receiver.

SOLUTION

On the upward, keep the rule as it is, because it is blown well. On the downward, the intended receiver is 99.9% known. Even if it dropping to 2 players stood next to each other, there is always a favourite to receive.  Umpires and players know this, so use this knowledge to apply is to some common sense umpiring.  Therefore, allow the receiver to receive it, if someone wants to chance their arm and step in front to intercept then go ahead. The only rule that should be applied is that after the first contact by receiver, no one is allowed to tackle before the ball has hit the turf again.

Simple.

[Ridge]

i see what you mean mani but i see that as being a problem.  i think that players and umpires just have to work at getting to know the rule better and practice at applying it.  i got the call right for once today!! i was so excited. 

[mani]

You got a call right for ONCE.......was thats the issue. It shouldnt take this long for that many people to still be unsure.

[Pepe]

Mani, I agree with you. This is an overly complicated rule which does not serve our game well.

It is not well understood and executed by players and umpires alike. What chance have spectators got?

[g9]

i got the call right for once today!! i was so excited. 

so have you found people up there to work with to get some umpire training? 

[keely]

SOLUTION

On the upward, keep the rule as it is, because it is blown well. On the downward, the intended receiver is 99.9% known. Even if it dropping to 2 players stood next to each other, there is always a favourite to receive.  Umpires and players know this, so use this knowledge to apply is to some common sense umpiring.  Therefore, allow the receiver to receive it, if someone wants to chance their arm and step in front to intercept then go ahead. The only rule that should be applied is that after the first contact by receiver, no one is allowed to tackle before the ball has hit the turf again.

Simple.

I don't understand what you're saying.

Let's skip past the "intended receiver is 99.9% known" statement for now and assume that we do know who the receiver is. What does "allow the receiver to receive it, if someone wants to chance their arm and step in front to intercept then go ahead" mean? Are you saying that regardless of who the initial receiver is, both players should be able to contest the ball as much as they want, swinging at each other at close range?

And then, after one player touches it, then the other can't contest the ball? So it's ok to contest the ball high in the air but not after it's been probably knocked down closer to the ground?

 

[BB1202]

I agree with Keely, regardless as to whether the ball is travelling at dangerous speeds on the downward, if another player is contesting with you whilst you recieve, serious damage could be caused, whether by lack of concentration on the ball caused by the contest or by the opposition player's stick, i can see your point and the rule may be complicated, but i personally dont think it will help having two players or more contesting a ball that is falling from the sky.

[kaiwawao]

I think Mani's point is that hockey should be like other sports and allow 2 players to fairly contest a falling ball, you can still call danger or foul play but his argument seems to be like in other sports (football, American football for example) when someone is collecting a falling ball, whoever gets there first and controls it should be granted possession. Perhaps even safe tackling while it's being brought down.

A well worded suggestion could be put to the HRb to consider, even if they ultimately reject it, it's better to have tried if you feel strongly about something.

[Bondy]

I think Mani's point is that hockey should be like other sports and allow 2 players to fairly contest a falling ball, you can still call danger or foul play but his argument seems to be like in other sports (football, American football for example) when someone is collecting a falling ball, whoever gets there first and controls it should be granted possession. Perhaps even safe tackling while it's being brought down.

The key difference between hockey and football (be it Aussie Rules, rugby, American etc) is that footballers don't have metre-long clubs that they'll be using to contest possession. If we were to allow players to contest falling overheads, it would take about five minutes before someone wore a stick in the head/chest. And while it's easy enough to penalise that, it doesn't change the fact that the bloke who should be taking a free hit has got blood pouring out of his face.

The current rule recognises that it is dangerous for players to be competing for an aerial ball. The onus is, as it should be, on the team who raised the ball (thus making it potentially dangerous) to ensure that it doesn't actually become dangerous. And if that team don't do that, then the umpire needs to act quickly (ie, before the ball comes down) to prevent it from becoming dangerous.

[Ridge]

Don't say club. That makes us sound like cavemen LOL. No g9 but I have contacted us field hockey for more info to see if they have anyone who could train me or give the test for my "player umpire" accreditation. From there I'll try to umpire a few games like that and next year go for my level 1.  And mani, I was just saying that because I've only just become accustomed to the rule. Nfhs rules are applied very differently where I am from so to play by fih rules and call the fouls in my head as I play is a rarity. But even so I screw this call up a lot but I got it right a lot this past weekend. Didn't really matter though, we played against the women's hpc this weekend and we got wooped big time LOL

[jtsoldier]

I understand the difficulty, I daresay, better than anyone, of consistency of interpretation of the aerial passing rules... but when we still have umpires following the mythical rule of calling for overheads, we can hardly complexificate(!) the rule, thereby confusing (or alienating?) those who currently interpret it correctly.

Had the problem of my own possible misinterpretation/lack-of-exposure-to-overheads this last weekend here (I'm naturally prone to mistakes  as a relatively inexperienced (new?) umpire). The simple temporary solution that worked for me? - the pre-match chat with the other umpire: "Hey, you mind covering overheads in my area for me?" "Sure." "Thank you.".

I haven't seen anything dangerous come of an aerial ball resulting from the current interpretation, but as pointed out.. particularly in "my realm" of U16 players, they are... (how do I say politely..?)... ah.. of doubtful mental and physical fitness to intercept a ball safely when it is at waist height, nevermind shoulder-height, it would likely lead to injury (if you heard the number of cautions and warnings I gave - unfortunately in seperate games or it would've been suspensions too - for dangerous baseball swings this past weekend, you'd be wondering how they had time to play the game).

[mani]

No Keely.

Youre not looking at it from a practical point of view.
Never in all my years have i seen ANYONE swing at receiving an aerial pass.

What im saying, is that if the intended receiver is going to receive the pass off a bounce, then CURRENTLY he is allowed to receive it. Why cant i come in from 10 yds away, and intercept the pass BEFORE it bounces?

If that was a situation in football, and a long punt from a keeper to a Peter Crouch, if they applied hockeys ruling, veryone would have to allow Peter Crouch to receive it, and secondly they'd have to back off 5 yds!

If this was Rugby League, and someone was kicking across field for a kick to the try line, then the winger would be allowed to receive it and attacking players would have to back off.

Its a farce - 2 +6ft 16stome rugby players contesting a ball mid air is FAR more dangerous than one small ball travelling at enough speed to barely cause a surface would (note: no swinging sticks so no danger)

I dont know why people are so bloody hung up on this cave-man type swinging of sticks, similar to Hurling.
I never said that, i said that people should be allowed to contest the ball in a controlled fashion, and the decision is based at the point of receive, not the point of delivery.

[kaiwawao]

The key difference between hockey and football (be it Aussie Rules, rugby, American etc) is that footballers don't have metre-long clubs that they'll be using to contest possession. If we were to allow players to contest falling overheads, it would take about five minutes before someone wore a stick in the head/chest. And while it's easy enough to penalise that, it doesn't change the fact that the bloke who should be taking a free hit has got blood pouring out of his face.

I would have to respectfully disagree here, the assumption seems to be that if 2 players are near each other both with sticks, waiting for a ball to come down, they will immediately begin waving sticks around dangerously at head height which I would submit is not commonly the case. If a ball is falling, in my experience, the players who try and trap it will have sticks either vertical by their body, or horizontal at a height to receive it, I have never seen any 2 players try and contest an aerial ball while swinging the stick like a club at shoulder/head height.

What we are talking about is where a ball is falling and someone nips in front of the receiver to take the ball down cleanly. I don't believe many players go out on the field with the intention to cause injury to others and the vast majority will play the ball safely.

Player expectation is often that whoever calls the ball first should take it but at present we penalise anyone who (even with great skill) could nip in front and take the ball down from a static initial receiver (or even play it safely down and away from the receiver to get an advantage).

Sports like football allow 2 players to jump into each other and even clash heads to get to the ball, American Football, players are highly padded with armour that can cause injury and regularly leap to get the ball/knock each other out of the way. You could even look at Rugby / Aussie rules football for actions where players collide with great force to collect the ball and don't have a problem with 2 players contesting the ball. I am not sure on lacrosse/hurly rules as I am not familiar with them but they seem ok to cope with lifted balls being received and players having "clubs".

I am not saying I want a rule change here or anyone is wrong, just trying to encourage debate on a point a person has raised such that it could be considered and thought out so that Mani could email it off to the HRB should he see fit, when the argument has been properly evaluated. We are mostly umpires of experience up to the highest levels, he is a player with experience at the highest levels and has suggested a change he would like to see, is it not fair to at least consider the aspects of the suggested change and give credit to players to not smack each other around the face just to receive a falling ball? Perhaps however, you see a different approach to hockey where this danger would be more common, in which case it would be a good way of saying this rule should not be changed.

[Diligent]

Note: by using "he" below, I am acknowedging that there is a lot more upset about this among men hockey players than women. Hope that's OK.

SOLUTION

On the upward, keep the rule as it is, because it is blown well. On the downward, the intended receiver is 99.9% known. Even if it dropping to 2 players stood next to each other, there is always a favourite to receive.  Umpires and players know this, so use this knowledge to apply is to some common sense umpiring.  Therefore, allow the receiver to receive it, if someone wants to chance their arm and step in front to intercept then go ahead. The only rule that should be applied is that after the first contact by receiver, no one is allowed to tackle before the ball has hit the turf again.

We understand the problem Mani, and as Keely says, this Rule is one of the most difficult to umpire. Even in South Premier Div 1, when both sides throw a handful of aerials every game, few landings are ever the same. And clearly the intended legitimate receiver is not 99.9% obvious, otherwise umpires would call it right every time and FHF wouldn't be discussing the issue.

And there is the other side of the coin as well - player expectation. Once an attacker has been given the space, he expects the same, and is outraged when next week's umpire lets a defender step across and take 'my' ball. But since the defender was allowed to do it two weeks ago, he would be outraged if the umpire had blown it. When this happens again and again through the season, some players are outraged enough to raise it in a discussion forum.

Unfortunately your solution encourages both players to "step in front and intercept". First of all that invites a clash of sticks at waist level, then shoulder level, then eye-level... and then we are into the second area where South Regional Umpires are totally useless - 9.7 not playing the ball above shoulder height? What it needs is a Rule that keeps players apart and sets one player free to take the falling ball. How about: "Players must not approach within 5m of an opponent receiving a falling raised ball..."?

Your other difficulty is that the HRB can't solve the problem for at least 2 years, if not 4 or more. You need something that will help your umpires achieve consistency on 2009 Rules in the 2009/10 season.

Here are some other solutions:
1) Involve the establishment - to agree it is a problem needing action, not just players moaning about umpires - not necessarily committees, but club captains and coaches and chief coach of the umpiring association - to prioritise the suggestions below as to: how soon to get results, how effective in achieving consistency, how practical at involving all umpires, meeting cost constraints.
2) Organise a training game or friendly to get lots of aerials in game situations, with umpire coaches watching to agree where the lines should be drawn.
3) Video the game, with 3 or 4 cameras if possible, to record all the landings for review and discussion - with the bonus of capturing a selection of receptions above/below shoulder height.
4) Grind down the information to put the foul/no-foul lines in writing, trawling through FHF to find good tips - as referenced by Keely.
5) Re-cut the video to pick out a selection of the obvious and close calls, with a commentary based on the written guidelines. Publish the written guidelines and the video as downloads on the association website.
6) Have a Rules evening for all association umpires, to present the guidelines on '5m from the receiver', 'shoulder height', and of course the 2009 free hit.

Not simple. But then neither is the problem.

[Bondy]

I would have to respectfully disagree here, the assumption seems to be that if 2 players are near each other both with sticks, waiting for a ball to come down, they will immediately begin waving sticks around dangerously at head height which I would submit is not commonly the case. If a ball is falling, in my experience, the players who try and trap it will have sticks either vertical by their body, or horizontal at a height to receive it, I have never seen any 2 players try and contest an aerial ball while swinging the stick like a club at shoulder/head height.

What we are talking about is where a ball is falling and someone nips in front of the receiver to take the ball down cleanly. I don't believe many players go out on the field with the intention to cause injury to others and the vast majority will play the ball safely.

Sorry - I didn't make my point as clearly as I should've.

Swinging sticks aren't the problem, because as you and mani both say, they're almost non-existant. But if I'm waiting to receive an overhead and you run a couple of metres in front of me (stick at shoulder height, say), I'm going to run forward to try and take it as well. You've now got two sticks at shoulder height, plus two players, all moving towards the ball. It doesn't take a huge leap of the imagination to see where something can go wrong, even with the best of intentions from both players. Body on body contact isn't a major problem (as rugby etc show) - the issue is that sticks can do a lot of damage. I'm also not sure about lacrosse and hurling, so can't comment on those.

I think that the "someone nips in front of the receiver to take the ball down cleanly" is actually a similar thing to the ban on undercutting. In both cases, if done well, it's a brilliant piece of skill. The problem is that, if not done well, it can be quite dangerous. And you can't have a rule saying "you're allowed to undercut if you can do it safely" - because there's no way of stopping someone who can't execute the skill safely from trying to. That's why I don't think that a rule allowing players to contest overheads in a safe manner would work.