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]

if done well, it's a brilliant piece of skill. The problem is that, if not done well, it can be quite dangerous.

hmmmm......are we talking about the receive of an aerial? the reverse stick edged hit? the drag flick? the ball smashed into the D from a free hit?

Because some of those 'dangers' are permitted.
So why not the receive of an aerial.

And simply if an occasion does arrive where 2 people race to a ball, surely the take out will be penalised.
Its the same as football - and players will soon understand who is in the positive position and who is in the negative.

If the player in the negative wants to charge the player in positive, then a suitable punishment must prevail.
PC for a late tackle - WHEREVER they are in that half.

[IRN BRU]

Why don't we just say that no-one is allowed to take down an aerial above shoulder height. The new regs should be below waist height to trap an aerial coming down unless it has bounced.

Thus allowing the contest of the ball when it drops and eliminating the need for swinging sticks at head height.

We already contest balls below shin height during open play and this rule would encourage aerials only to be thrown when the space dictates that they could be brought down in space (ie allowing it to bounce)

The same rules would apply on danger when the ball is lifted into the air.

[mani]

I dont see the rule being a problem.

Its simlar to the Rugby rule of taking a player out in the air when catching a kick or line out.
The rule is designed to ensure that the skill level must match the attempt.

And if it doesnt, then the penalty is greater because the risk is greater.
70s football had allsorts of poor tackling, now the majority of tackles from behind or woefully late or heavily penalised. Its makes refereeing a whole lot easier. On the flip side it makes the tackler a hell of a lot more wary of their actions. Yes there will be idiots - but there always are. No amount of rules is ever going to stop that.

What im proposing allows skill to flourish, whilst keeping things simple for players and umpires. People attempting to intercept know the rule - by all means attempt it, but you'd better nail it, otherwise im coming down hard on you. The risk and doubt is therefore put firmly on the interceptor and not receiver and umpire as it currently is.

[dodgeyumpires]

Heres a great reason why we shouldnt allow players to contest a ball in the air...  Two players genuinely contesting for the ball. Imagine the mess on the turf and the face of the red player if connection of the stick had been made with his face. This isnt one of those two players start swinging wildly at the ball scenario either. 

As for footy? Rugby League and Rugby Union, if a player makes a tackle on another player before they have caught the ball, Penalty. If they are in the air and a tackle is made on them, Penalty. In both scenarios, depending on those 'you had to be there' there is a chance of sin bin or yellow card. Its about safety, you cant make a tackle on a payer who A) Doesnt have the ball and B) isnt on the ground. Not too different from us really... Cant make a Tackle on someone who doesnt have the ball under control, nor tackle someone who is about to gain control of the ball from a potentially dangerous situation.

[mani]

And in that situation, the player in yellow must be penalised.
He attempted getting the ball, and fluffed it.

Now - under my suggestion, thats a PC to the team in Red.

I dont see why you people are bothered so much about the safety aspect in this instance. I didnt see anyone kick up a fuss when people tackle flat stick (proximity to stick, ball, both) hitting a face.
Dont see anyone blowing against someone who smashes a ball through a player.

Under the current rule, that would be FH to yellow, even though the only skill he showed was to run into an area where the ball was dropping - well bravo! (talk about penalising skill!)
The team in red however saw a pass, made the pass, and a connection between passer and receiver made, all with some intent.

Clearly the team in red are using legitimate hockey skills with the intention of gaining benefit.

If the rule stays as it is, there will be coaching clinics on how to run into populated drop zones to win a free hit - PATHETIC!

[dodgeyumpires]

ahhh... missed that post mani... my bad! forget the second half then.... but look what happens in the video... guy almost gets his head taken off. And the resulting penalty? not a yellow, not even a green.  Whether it is a right call or not, why even let this sort of thing be in our game? The chance to have someones head taken off just so you can contest the ball in the air? Seems kinda rough... considering the difficulties we/some people have with danger on the goal line.

[dodgeyumpires]

Unfortunately my friend, I beg to differ. Not quite sure what you mean with the flat stick/stick to face thing... dont quite get it. But a player who smashes a ball through another player (where Im from) gets penalised for dangerous play.... usually strating with a green card.

[mani]

Dodgy, in the case of your video, if you transfer the same ruling convention i propose (similar to football or rugby), the onus is placed on the guy in yellow to be 100% in his take.

In the real situation of your video, he doesnt get anything because the rule says it wasnt that bad a foul.
Under the new rule wording, id suggest if someone attempting to intercept a foul doesnt make a clean take and charges the other receiver with stick/body/both - its a straight yellow and PC.

Now.....under the new rule, that yellow player would certainly think twice about what he did. (or was planning to do)

[Diligent]

In the real situation of your video, he doesnt get anything because the rule says it wasnt that bad a foul.
Under the new rule wording... - its a straight yellow and PC.
... under the new rule, that yellow player would certainly think twice about what he did. (or was planning to do)

Well the clip ends before we find out what the umpire gave. But we do hear the whistle, and to me it sounds like a '10/15 minute yellow' whistle, for breaking any number of rules: 9.2 dangerous stick; 9.3 touch/handle/interfere; 9.4 impede; 9.7 above shoulder; 9.8 dangerous; 9.10 approach receiver; 9.12 obstruct; 9.13 tackle cleanly.
And Mani it's a free hit not a PC because the offence was outside the 23.

Great video - they didn't broadcast that incident in the UK - so thanks Dodgey.
But is not exactly the marginal call we need to discuss, is it?

[mani]

Well thats a rule change i suggest, anybody attempting to make a clean take at an aerial has to get it spot on, or run the risk of giving a way a PC.

This would be a pitch wide rule on aerials - purely because of the danger/risk involved.

[Goalie64]

Diligent - mani is proposing that such an offence, wherever it occurs would be punished by a PC

[BB1202]

the ball smashed into the D from a free hit?

I think you'll find they're changing that one a little bit... but i still see your point, although with drag flicks dangers are helped to be prevented with the use of face masks

[Goalie64]

As an aside from this, I've just received England Hockey News, and had a look at the advert on page 60 for Quicksticks.

On first sight it looked to me as being 2 kids who have both swung in with their sticks at waist height and the ball trapped between the 2 stick heads. Was surprised to see England Hockey seeming to be encouraging competing for the ball in this situation.

However, on further examination it is just an exercise called Squeeze Ball, as below.

http://www.englandhockey.co.uk/youth/page.asp?section=0001000100230001&sectionTitle=Quicksticks+Challenges#32

[mani]

DILIGENT

I think its an awesome video, because its short and sweet, in terms of action. But thats how quick most decisions are going to be made. There are very few players able to aerial the distance that Sohail can, so a ball in the air for +4 seconds is unlikely.

Therefore this clip is fantatsic, and its exactly the borderline call that needs to be made.

From what i can make out, the canadian guy might just get a top edge (look at the ball trajectory), but is then taken out.
imagine the same pass being made on the floor, with cover Aussie defender coming across, and Canadian player jabbing it out of reach, only for the momentum of the Aussie to take out the Canadian!
But under my suggested change, because the ball was airborne, and the tack out creates greater risk, therefore the penalty should be greater.

The stupidity of the current aerial rule means that A) all the Aussie player had to do was run to within 5 yds and the ball is his, B) if he wasnt going to get there he'd have to stop dead in his tracks and for some unknown stupid reason not be allowed to intercept the ball or C) through no fault of his own, the Candian player would have to surrender possesion for merely receieving a genuine passing method.

Under the new way - A)The Aussie has to use his skill to gain possession of the ball, B)has to do so cleanly or be penailsed justly for taking a high risk strategy and C) the Canadian doesnt have to worry about surrendering possesion through no fault of his own.

The exact same could have happened if the ball was played on the floor, canadian player running from wide to centre, Aussie player running in opposite direction, ball lands in the space (ish), Canaidan player at last second jabs ball out of reach of Aussie, Aussie player momentum takes out Candian.

That sequence of events, actions and thought processes should not change whetehr the ball is in the air on on the ground, the Aussie player should still think he has to intercept it, the Canadian player still should be able to want to take the ball towards goal.

The only defining factor here is whether the skill level of the Aussie travelling at speed is good enough to intercept on the move.

[Diligent]

The only defining factor here is whether the skill level of the Aussie travelling at speed is good enough to intercept on the move.

Clearly not good enough, and play selection skills non-existent.

Red appears moving in line to take the pass as it drops to shoulder height. The nearest yellow is clearly treating red as 'initial receiver' and tracking but not approaching. The Aussies are comfortably 6-1 up with less than 3 minutes left to play, and everyone knows and respects the rules except our man 10m+ away. This muppet decides he is going to be 'initial receiver', with a spectacular pick of the ball in the air. So having put brain and vision in neutral for maximum sprint-power, he suddenly discovers there's a team-mate just where he was aiming for. Only one option - use red's ear as brakes.

Awesome decison by player.    Easy decision for the umpire.    Borderline? Maybe not.
Was there any follow-up disciplinary action by IOC/FIH?

Edit moved to later post...