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]

FOOZ - your pic has nothing to do with the receive of an aerial!

[mosley59]

Mani, Fooz's point is that players will still take dangerous swipes at aerial balls regardless of the proximity of a defender, contrary to your assertion that they don't/won't.

Imagine now, that the player in fooz's photo is the initial receiver of an overhead pass from a teammate on halfway. He chooses to hit the ball while it is in midair, as a shot on goal, an action which is legal (provided he does not hit it above shoulder height, of course). That defender could have run in, trying to intercept that ball, as you propose allowing him to do, but he is in danger from the attacker choosing to take that shot. In your proposed rules, who would get the resultant FH? Would it be the attacker who was perfectly placed to receive the ball and is trying to take a legitimate shot on goal, or the defender who has run in trying to intercept the pass and placed himself in danger?

The problem with this scenario, is that under your proposed rule change, defenders will attempt to run in to intercept the pass more often, resulting in attackers taking rushed options when receiving the ball, which in turn leads to danger being caused to the defenders as a result of THEIR actions.

[mani]

ARRRGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Do you people even watch hockey?
Do half of you even play?

The only reason the guy in the pic looks to be swinging is because i can only assume he is taking a shot at goal!
He is trying to propel the ball away from himself with enough force to score a goal! This ball would have to be propelled with enough pace to beat a goalkeeper - making it necessary for a considerable swing at the ball.

Now turn this to the RECEIVE of an aerial - at no point during the receive am i trying to propel the ball at any force to anywhere else other than a max of 2 yds from myself. This would require a minimal stick movement, if at all to control (not propel) the ball for myself. NO SWINGING STICK
Even if i were looking to propel the ball to a teammate, i certainly wouldnt need to take an almighty swish at the ball as im only passing it to him/her, again NO SWINGING STICK

So - if im looking to take the ball for myself, or move it onto a teammate -  NO SWINGING STICK

So fooz - where and when do you think a player receiving an aerial pass will come close to making the same/similar type swing as your action shot?

Mosley - if the defender decides to chance his arm, thats his choice. He either stands in the line of the ball towards goal and wears it, decides to intercept and comes in fromt of the shot taker, or simply ,moves out of the way.

Those are his choices, for him to make - NOT THE UMPIRE!

[mosley59]

Yes Mani, I watch hockey, I also play when I can. I find this comment extremely rude.

Please read my hypothetical scenario PROPERLY and then respond. And FYI, when speaking about danger, remember that the swinging stick from the legitimate shot on goal I describe is dangerous as well.

Edited to remove rude comment

[Neo]

Time to take a cold shower folks - one can still debate without shouting. Otherwise the sinbin beckons.

[mani]

Mosley - who makes it dangerous, the perfectly legitimate use of technique to propel the ball towards goal, or the person who decides to stand in the way?

NEO - im not shouting, im just dismayed and bemused at people who think they use swinging sticks to receive an aerial pass! Im more bemused at people who think my suggestion is worthwhile because people MIGHT use a swinging stick and MAY have seen someone do it, at somepoint in their hockey expereinces.

My suggestion is made on what happens 99.999999999%, in 99.999999999999% of hockey matches on 99.99999999999% of the planet!

Surely the ruling should benefit the masses, and not the minority!

[mosley59]

Mani - my point was that the defender being allowed within 5m will put increased pressure on the receiver, meaning that said receiver will be more likely to make stupid moves, like the one in the photo, in order to be able to get away with the ball cleanly or maintain possession.

In short, I think your rule may lead to more wild sticks than are present under the current rules, and the distinct lack of advantage gained from an overhead under mooted rules (i.e no longer guaranteed the ball if you're the initial receiver) may result in less overheads being used, making the play less exciting and dynamic for spectators and players. Sure, it's a high-risk, high-reward rule (PC vs intercepted overhead), but I think players will play the odds, and allow the receiver to get the ball and not risk giving up the PC in midfield. The increased risk to players' safety, however, is my main reason for saying no to the idea.

Of course, this is all hypothetical. I could extrapolate more accurately if you could give me a clear outline of what will and won't be permitted under your proposed new rules, incl distances, penalties (seriously a PC for any infringement?) and guidances (especially for how to define who is the initial receiver in a situation where two players are side-by-side as the ball is thrown and run for it together, since your rule will remove the current rule in favour of the defence).

[mani]

Mosley - you say that the receiver will make more stupid moves?

Like what? who is he going to mid-air swat the ball to? He knows he cant hit it chest high through a player? he knows he's not going to get charged through the back? he knows the defender in close attendance cant raise his stick above shoulder height?

The only outcome from the interceptor will be one of 2 things -
A) he is going for a clean intercept which means he'll need a controlled stick with minimal movement, and adopting my proposed rule that he cant impede anyone in the act of intercepting, i hardly think he'll come in 'swinging' to ensure he makes this clean take.
B) he is trying to deny the attacker from receiving the ball by knocking the ball out of play. Now having seen this done in the past at all levels, this action has never been a hugley agresssive windmill style swing at the ball, similar to a Chris Gayle smash through mid-off!!!!!!!
Its usually a controlled play of the ball in mid air to ensure they make the connection with enough control and power to cut out the pass, without missing it!

So in my last 2 posts ive described 99.999% of what attackers do, and 99.999% of what interceptors do.
If you dont believe me, then ask around and poll how many people turn into Chris Gayle when receiving or intercepting an aerial.
And when you get more than 20 saying they DO swing that uncontrollably durng aerials, i'll be waiting to say you were right and i was wrong. But im pretty convinced i'll be wishing you Happy New Year 2024 before you find those 20!

But as i said, find the people who do swing to that extremity and i'll consider my suggestion flawed.

[Diligent]

As Moderator I agree with Neo and Mani that the photo of a uniquely wild shot at goal is completely irrelevant to the discussion of controlling an aerial pass. Fooz, Moseley, and others: Forget it. Do not mention it again. If necessary I can snip any discussion of swinging sticks off to the Sin Bin.

I somehow missed the recent posts, so sorry if I rewind to:

My trouble with the current ruling is that
a) its been blown too inconsistently for too bloody long
b) how can it be logical for a team to be penalised for trying to pass a ball to a teammate with a legitimate technique
c) why in some instances is the oppo not allowed to intercept a ball, even though hockey is a ball based invasion game.

Id be pretty angry if i had the ability to throw a 60yd aerial, and then to have a foul blown against me because an opposition player happened to be within 5m of the person i passed to. No attempt to make an intercept or play the ball, no skill involved, no dominance or pressure - just standing there!

The person aerialling the ball has bags of skill to execute a 60yd aerial, ive used my vision to see my teammate, ive made some kind of communication to let him know its coming, ive read the play and space and decided the aerial is the best pass selection, and all these skills which ive spent hours on the training ground refining and perfecting are rendered useless because somebody is STOOD (a well practised skill) within 5m of my teammate - silly dont you think!

In my view it should be possible to deal with (a), and do what it takes to get all umpires blowing the same thing the same way. But I wouldn't want to see it that any nearby defender automatically becomes the receiver, in the same way as every touch of a foot in the D was automatic PC.

I aim to follow the rule so that if the ball was dropping to an attacker, who could take it without moving, then the attacker was the receiver, and defenders must not approach. If the attacker was in-line, and need only move backwards or forwards, when any defender would have to move sideways, then the attacker is still the receiver. That, I think, is what Mani wanted on 14th June.

On the other hand, if the attacker has to step sideways to take it, especially if the defender is in-line, then it is unclear, so the rule allows the defender can step in/up/back to receive. That interception is, I think, near to what Mani wanted on the first few pages of this thread.

Either way the current rule makes the opponent give the receiver space to do it. But it is still very hard working out where the ball will drop and what players are trying to do, and where everyone will be when the ball arrives.

The rule guidance tries to help by saying: if it is unclear, then the defender becomes the receiver. But actually all that does is shift the fuzzy area from '... is the attacker or defender receiving?' to '... is the attacker clearly the receiver or not?'. A new rule, which asked any interception to be 'safe', produces a fuzzy area around '... is it safe or not?'.

Which brings us back to narrowing that fuzzy area and getting decisions to depend less on the umpire and more on what happened.

[foozbear]

this was an area that Keely touched on and that we have worked in our games.

The initial lift of the ball is controlled by the umpire whose half it is lifted in.

the drop is handeld by the umpire whos half it drops in.

What this allowed me to do was NOT worry about anything else but get the 10 or so metres from the drop and I could see Who had position from the moment it went up till the moment it went down.

Looking a your explanation, because I couldnt find what mani was looking for and he couldnt inform me in a way I understood, (not a personal poke...just honesty) I think its natural to assume...

If the attacker IS on the spot and he needs to adjust a step or two to make a safe play of the ball then he probably should be allowed. If the ball is clearly over his head and a defender is standing 5 metres behind...then the ball is clearly the defenders.

JUST because a player calls...MINE...doesnt make the ball theres.

[Neo]

Thanks Fooz...  your reiteration of the advice & practice of handling aerials is valuable, and the majority of the content of this discussion has no doubt prompted a few umpires to consider more carefully the handling of aerials. I believe this will be of benefit.

Mani, your passion for this topic is undoubted, and you have been given many opportunities to flesh out your argument, and suggestions on how you may approach officiating bodies to discuss adjustments to the rule and/or its interpretation. {Please remember to watch the boundaries of that passion, as unbridled enthusiam may not always be received in the way that you might expect and could harm your chances to persuade others of the merit of your arguments}

Perhaps everything has now been covered in this discussion for now, but I'm sure Diligent will keep a watchful eye over it...   

[mosley59]

Ok Diligent and Mani, allow me to replace the photo with the "Dangerous Overheads" video found here, under "Overheads". In particular, please watch the very last incident on the video, at 2:18. The initial receiver (the white player) is placed under pressure by an opponent running in to try and intercept the aerial ball. The defender then swings at the ball. Had the black player been closer when the swing was taken, as mani proposes allowing her to be, she would likely have been hit.

This is an international match, between two teams I consider to be at the very top of the world stage (NED and GER), and who have great skills and confidence in those skills. Imagine then, the results of allowing this new rule at a lower level, e.g a secondary schoolgirl's match, where players have less skills, and are less confident, making them more likely to swing at the ball if they panic; and less knowledge of necessary forces (e.g to clear the ball out the side or to a teammate behind the intercepting player, resulting in wild swings. That is the point I am trying to make. While mani's rule proposal appears to have merit for those at the top levels, I think the risks that will result from it at lower levels make it irresponsible to implement.

I've said my piece now, and am now weighing out of this debate.

[mani]

Fair enough.
It seem i cant articulate what i want, and after a warning from Dilligent about berating umpires it seems i pull out of this discussion.

All i know is that even at Prem level womens in England, about 4 players have the ability to aerial, as for Secondary schoolgirls.
I have coached at 2 leading schools in the UK for girls hockey, and coached womens National South with Reading, and not 1 of those girls used the aeria in matches. So as for it being a problem at lower levels - well i dont think so, it cant be aproblem if it doesnt exist.

Moderator: Sentence deleted.

Mani you noted my PM. Here is the public warning:

Many umpires would agree this is a problem. The only way to fix it is to work together. When you, or any other player or coach, labels all umpires with disgusting insults, it simply drives away anyone who would help. And if your selfish vendetta leads to another season of uncertainty about who's receiving, then it is spoiled for everyone.
Help umpires to solve it. Take the rants and jibes somewhere else.

Diligent.
Moderator - Umpiring Corner

[mani]

Dilligent.

Flaw No1
Ive had umpires on this topic say it would be a problem at lower levels, when the facts are that the aerial is less used at lower levels.
Non existent in the womens game in England, hardly existent in the lower leagues of the mens game in England.
How can you create a problem that isnt there?

Flaw No2
Umpires say there would be a wild swinging of sticks, when in +20yrs of hockey, using both old and new rules, ive never seen anyone take a wild swipe at it in open play. They say the suggestion would create danger when the historical facts are that the swinging stick/danger issue is theoretical.

Flaw No3
Hockey is a ball based invasion game. All other similar games do not have criteria on when and how you can intercept the ball from the opposition. Apart from the 'mark' call in Rugby Union, i know of no other sport where you must allow a receiver a free take of the ball.

If any of the counter points id heard were valid, id back down, im a sensible man, and i dont create problems that arent there.
Ive said that i dont blame the umpires, i blame the wording. So id appreciate that you take this fact into account before you issue this public warning.
But i will (as a player) get my back up, when umpires make up scenarios (as above) of theoretical danger, to try and validate the current rule. Every week i see the issue of who is intial receiver, who was where, how far they were, what they were doing.

I come up with a practical solution (although not written in umpire talk) to resolve this area which is causing issues up and down the country, only to be met with hurdles which dont exist or even need to exist.

Of course its frustrating, trying to propose a solution using realistic scenarios based on fact against theoretical opinions based on factors which rarely exist.

For the record - this is not a selfish vendetta, and my opinions wont spoil it for anyone.
I have tried to help the umpires solve it - read their responses to see just how far their heels are dug in - then tell me who's progressive in thought and who isnt!

[Twister]

It's difficult to umpire!

Best advice is forget about the ball (it's not going to do anything when it's 10m up in the air) and get your eyes to the rough landing zone early, then watch the players and what they do.

It's frustrating for players when umpires don't see what actually happened because they are staring up in the sky.

It's frustrating for umpires when you get players who clearly have no idea of the rules (e.g. shouting "mine" and then looking amazed when their call doesn't earn them the free hit!) and don't understand what they can or can't do.

It's nice for everyone when we keep the ball on the ground (Cloughie would have approved - there's no astro in the sky)!

I don't think changing the rules now will help - it's taken about 5 years for a few teams to get the hang of these ones - i.e. leave the receiver to mess it up themselves, or pounce as soon as the ball is on the ground...

(I agree that swinging sticks aren't an issue, and it's not an issue lower down - otherwise you would get more umpires and players who know the rules and understand their application).