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]

Exactly, we all know its difficult to umpire, but thats because you umpires have 1001 things to consider.

a - who got to it first?
b - did he take it legally?
c - did he impede anyone to get to it?

On the flip side, the other person contesting it

a - did he impede anyone trying to recieve a ball?
b - has he done anything dangerous to the receiver, before, during or after the receiver went to collect, or during receive?

5 things that have bugger all to do with where it lands, how it lands, who it landed to, what the flight of the ball was, how many Tesco clubcard points it has, or if its remembered when Grannys birthday is!

[Bondy]

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?

If there's no problem in the lower levels, and the top umpires know how to umpire the current rule and the top players know how to play it, what's the problem with the current rule?

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.

While any swinging would obviously be dangerous, I believe that the very act of two (or more) players running towards a ball with their sticks at or close to head height is also potentially quite dangerous. Their eyes are on the ball, not other players, so the chances of collisions and sticks jabbing/poking in head/throat/chest area are high. We saw in the clip from the Olympics (Aus v Can, IIRC) what can happen when two players are genuinely attempting to contest a falling aerial - these are the best players in the world and they can't do it safely - why should we change the rules to allow everyone else to try what Olympians can't do safely?

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.

Rugby, soccer and gridiron all have offside rules - yet hockey doesn't, and the game is the better for it. New Zealand bans nuclear-powered ships from visiting her waters, yet no other country does - that doesn't automatically make our anti-nuclear legislation wrong. Just because other sports allow something doesn't mean that hockey must allow the same. Besides, rugby (and leage) do both have a further restriction - a player cannot be tackled in the air (ie, while receiving their version of an aerial).

I am not blindly digging my heels in and saying that the rules are perfect just because that's what's written in the rule book. Churchill once said democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried - and that kind-of sums up my personal feelings on this rule.

[Hacker]

Mani, whilst not disagreeing with the need for the debate I would just challenge your Flaw 1. In my experience (having umpired every mens' division in Yorkshire) I think that an aerial (or an attempted one) happens regularly down to Div 6 and is not uncommon lower (but usually not well executed).

I would agree that it is not the best umpired rule in the world but I'm not sure if that is the fault of the writen word or our ability to quickly an accurately recognise who the legitimate receiver is. It would be an interesting experiment to remove the relevant receiving clauses and judge the issue on danger but then we would/might struggle with that judging who created the danger. As a suggestion (presume that you are playing summer league) why not persuade some of the teams and umpires to play your version-unless that is deemed to invalidate insurance.

With regard to swinging sticks: I haven't seen anyone swing the stick at an aerial in the middle of the pitch but have seen it happen to ones landing in the D as the either the striker attempts to get a shot off or the defender tries a panic clearance!

[mani]

BONDY - whats wrong with the current rule.

Well i'll pay for your flight, 6 months accomaodation, travel to any National League game you desire - then you'll see first hand what this rule does to the best players in England, the umpires, coaches and spectators!

It is laughable at the shambles this rule is. As ive said before, TDs have now practically banned us from talking about it to umpires because they blow it so inconsistently. I can hand on heart say that when they did blow it right, they were thanked so much it was embarrasing. That was how rare it was.

The top umpires dont know how to umpire the current rule. It still causes issues at EHL level. Watch the streaming and you'll see.

Why should we change the rules to allow everyone else to try what Olympians can't do safely? - all Olympians or just 2 who happened to do it once! Context Bondy!

I am finding that both umpires and players are admitting its wrong, and that it is causing anguish - but im the only person on here trying to do something about it. What is more worrying is that some umpires are just happy to go along with it.
And that is so totally wrong its embarrassing for the umpiring fraternity.

Bondy - from what i undersatnd you are an international umpire. If you think the rule doesnt need changing, then you are either agreeing to further your own cause, or genuinely dont undersatnd that this problem reaches your level too. I know enough of the GB boys to have heard them moan about just how terrible this rule is. If you think youre blowing it right - youre mistaken!

You know its wrong.
You know it needs to change
But you dont do anything about it.
And when someone (me) does try, you put up barriers.

A worry. Over and Out!

[philthy]

Mani, with all due respect - you're getting a bit blinkered here

You say you want to *do something* to get the wording changed which is fine but all you actually appear to be doing is coming on here and ranting about it.
Not once have you appeared to even vaguely change your opinion because of someone else's response - you're sticking, almost dogmatically, to "the umpires are blowing it wrong"
Maybe you're completely right.
But maybe you're not.

And saying "players are complaining that the umpires are blowing it wrong". Maybe they are - but just maybe, the player played it wrong. And we all know that's possible because we all know we've had a rant about the umpire blowing something that we actually had done, but kinda hoped we'd got away with...

Maybe if you toned down the vitriol a little and stopped some of the comments that are starting to verge on personal attacks, then there's going to be more mileage in this.

[mani]

Philthy

I think you'll find that i dont have direct contact with any HRB members.
I dont know umpire speak, i dont know umpire managers etc etc etc.
Redumpire said he'd help - but he can see the problem and also wants to do something about it.

As for umpires coming on here, making up scenarios, or saying 1 instance, in 1 tournament at an Olympics suddenly means every Olympian is incapable of playing the rule without body checking their opponent, or spearing them in the head with a composite is utter crap!
Why would i change my opinion on 1 occasion?
Why would i change my opinion when ive never seen a swinging stick?
Why would i change my opinon when someone uses Secondary school girls game when they dont use aerials?

Real examples, happening all the time, and i'll change my mind. 1 off instances, or fictiscious school girl games are not persuasive enough for me.
If someone wants to use 1 off examples as a safety issue, then hitting the ball is enough to be banned, as i once saw someone take a ball in the head, get a fractured skull and was blinded. But thats a 1 off! Not the norm.
Follow throughs should be banned, as i was (unfortunately) stood 4 paces behind Craig Parnham when he had his wind pipe destroyed by Sohails follow through, and needed an emergency tracheotomy on the pitch. Only once - but if thats the premise, then ban follow thoughs too.

And if that many players are getting it that wrong for this long - then maybe us players are the sub-species to the uber beings that are umpires! 

Dont worry Dilligent. No more will be said. Promise.

[foozbear]

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.

Mani....

I have already pointed out the Fair catch rule in american football. Here is a quote from the wiki on it.

"A fair catch is a feature of American football and several other codes of football. In rugby union and Australian rules football, a fair catch is called a mark; see mark (Australian football) and mark (rugby) for more information on fair catches in those games. Fair catches featured in some extinct forms of football, and they have been abolished in other modern codes.

The primary reason for the fair catch rule is to protect the receiver. A receiver directs his attention toward the incoming punt and cannot focus on the defenders running towards him."

So Mani...lets please look at the stuff that being posted.

It seems your talking alot about womens games and Im not sure what games you coach OR participate in. I hardly see a high ball thrown in national womens games as much as I see in mens social games.

the video you posted  were all post perfect, They were all played in front of a running player which made it a fair ball contest wise. I didnt see any that may have been suspect. If a player played the ball like I sw in the video Id call play on too.

Have you got any videos that show "suspect" umpiring decisions that we could review

[Diligent]

I think you'll find that i dont have direct contact with any HRB members.
I dont know umpire speak, i dont know umpire managers etc etc etc.
Redumpire said he'd help - but he can see the problem and also wants to do something about it.

You are aware, of course, that Red is an umpire manager and an umpire.

As for umpires coming on here,... we all know which ideas you regard as daft. But did you not notice any contributors offering something we thought was quite sensible?

Dont worry Dilligent. No more will be said. Promise.

That's what you promised the last 3 or 4 times. We know you can't resist, Mani. Just keep it polite. Don't let the Antipodeans pull your sting.

[mani]

The lips are sealed on this one.
 

[redumpire]

You are aware, of course, that Red is an umpire manager and an umpire.

I'm not a UM, Diligent: I am an umpire and a Match Official / TD.

For the record, I do think that there is mileage in Mani's suggestion, but I disagree vehemently that all umpires at English National League level are blowing the current rule incorrectly.  However, I am happy to work with Mani, and anyone else who agrees with him, to try to help with ironing out the perceived inconsistencies.

[Diligent]

Sorry Red, UM, MO, TD - they're all rare breeds where I umpire.

As to the rest, that's what I was thinking.

[ivyleague]

Mani, respectfully

Margaret Hunnabal from England (ex grade one international umpire, current international umpire manager, and well respected internationally) is on the HRB - she is also a very approachable person. She can be contacted through the NPUA, which for England is where you can direct any issues you have with umpires (for National League). Alternatively, in England, Jane Nockolds can also provide support - she is a paid member of EH staff who is responsible for the development of umpires and officials. Both are both very easy to talk to, not defensive, and i'm sure would be more than happy to have some dialogue with you about this or other subjects. There is also the chair of the NPUA ... all contact details are readily available through a simple google search ... or via the England Hockey or NPUA websites.

In my opinion 'umpire speak' is the same as player and coach speak. I’m pretty sure most, if not all, umpires played hockey at some point before or during their umpire career. We are all on this site because we share your passion for hockey. We don't always see eye to eye with each other but hockey is a sport not a technical science, and we will not always agree. Just because we don't agree with each other, doesn't mean we all dig our heels in or rally around each other, sometimes it means that individuals who happen to be players, or umpires, coincidentally agree with each other. I think that's ok.

I understand your perspective regarding the aerial pass. I agree it's difficult to umpire at times, but it's also difficult for players to understand when it's being blow correctly as they are sometimes watching/participating in the game from their own perspective. Top level coaches including, for example, Jason Lee, have publicly recognized this difficulty.  I also understand that the only way forward with this frustration is challenging the rule with the HRB & discussing it with the appropriate umpiring association.

However... in watching this thread the issue standing out is not the aerial pass but the manner in which the discussion is conducted. You may not agree with Bondy et al but they are entitled to their opinion and, regardless of whether you agree or not, they have put their own perspective forward succinctly and politely. I don't think it's appropriate to make statements like 'you umpires', or to question whether members ‘even watch hockey’ or sarcastically inviting Bondy to come over. It not only dissuades people from contributing, but also takes so much away from the point you are trying to make. I know you're passionate, and I share your passion for the game, but when passion turns into anger and put downs it's not appropriate for the forum.  If you want people to understand your opinion and engage in meaningful debate, I believe that you need to show more respect for their opinion and perspective.

cheers

[mani]

Please see a PM i received earlier today. And this is from someone who quite strongly disagreed with me openly in this thread!

I gotta say... in no way was I pursuaded by your actual argument at the time, but I have seen several aerial balls intercepted in the past two/three weeks, all cleanly and safely. Of course, the rules don't allow for it, so it got blown against them, but you might well be right - the video in that thread was really just a one-off incident, and it is possible to intercept without collision.

[foozbear]

MANI...just because you drive a car safely all the time doesnt mean you can take your eyes off the road.

it WILL take ONE incident for there to be serious reprocussions.

I have seen far too many possible injury situations to be convinced that we need to change.

I still am trying to figure out what exactly your trying to change. You HAVE DEMANDED that I write to my umpire board, but I have no idea what I'm writing.

we all know the issue the FIH had with hitting with the side of the sticks and we have seen the action on that. Just because it isnt dangerous 99% of the time its the 1% that we are trying to over come.

this is from the 2nd page of the rules..

Responsibility and Liability
Participants in hockey must be aware of the Rules
of Hockey and of other information in this publication.
They are expected to perform according to the Rules.
Emphasis is placed on safety. Everyone involved in the
game must act with consideration for the safety of others.
Relevant national legislation must be observed.


enough said.

[jtsoldier]

Interesting - they haven't outlawed cars, despite the fact that some idiots drive them, either. We also tend to have rather serious repercussions when they collide...

If this thread is going to be resurrected, please don't instantly jump on the old bandwagon. I'm sure the reason mani backed off was to allow tempers to die down (see the last para in ivyleague's post), but obviously it is already heating up...

Typically what would happen at such a point is the dreaded sin bin gets involved...