Too much advantage

 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!

[John w]

A player is tackled, the ball lifts up off the tackler's stick and hits the player just below the knee, the tackled player regains possession and continues away with the ball.
What is the correct decision?

[keely]

Hits which player below the knee?

[jtsoldier]

A player is tackled, the ball lifts up off the tackler's stick and hits the player just below the knee, the tackled player regains possession and continues away with the ball.
What is the correct decision?

Lemme see if I interpret correctly (prefered standard for terms is "defender" and "attacker", though in this instance I'd use "carrier" and "tackler" I guess).

Carrier is tackled by tackler. The ball lifts off the tackler's stick and hits - here's the confusion - the tackler's () leg just below the knee, the carrier regains possession and continues.
Sounds of things, the correct decision has been made - advantage.

If it hits the CARRIER's leg, I'd say blow it as a foot.


Edit: keely beats me to it.. again. Or was it redumpire last time?

[keely]

If it helps, discard this notion of "lifted". It's not a rule (except for intentional raises off free hits or the first hit on a PC), full stop. The rule you're looking for is danger. So, was the ball dangerous when it struck whichever player just below the knee?

[John w]

Sorry if I didn't make it clear.

The attacker was tackled, the ball rebounded off the defender's stick and hit the attacker just below the knee.

[Hockeyjon]

I would say the attacker has gained an advantage from the deflection... If it hit him/her below the knee its a FH against, UNLESS you judge the deflected lift to be dangerous in which case FH attack.. Simple!!!

[redumpire]

I would say the attacker has gained an advantage from the deflection... If it hit him/her below the knee its a FH against, UNLESS you judge the deflected lift to be dangerous in which case FH attack.. Simple!!!

Agree with Jon.

[dodgeyumpires]

Agreed, but very rarely (if ever) is a tackle which makes the ball jump into someones shinpads going to be dangerous. Blow the foot, its the defenders free hit.

Even if it was judged to be 'dangerous', I think you would still need to blow the whistle. Free hit to attack, but the whistle would still need to go. This guy has just kicked the ball forward and regained control form it, thus eliminating one defending player. He then screams off down the sideline to score... or imagine in the circle... defender tackles, ball hits attacker in leg, the attacker then scores. He has scored a goal by propelling the ball forward with his body.... too much of an advantage for me at least

[redumpire]

Is there such a thing as "too much advantage" dodgey?  Surely the whole point of advantage is that it's advantageous?  How can something be "too advantageous"?

(I'm not being clever here as I'm pretty sure that I'd blow exactly what you say you'd blow; I'm just not sure why...)

[Diligent]

Has the lift off the tackler's stick forced the carrier to unintentionally play the ball with a leg?
But then the carrier is not disadvantaged, and he can continue away with the ball.
Play on?

I am getting ready to be told that's a terrible decision, which is what most players said when I followed that logic in about September 2008. It's a vivid memory. 

[dodgeyumpires]

Shall we leave this 'Lifted?' thread and star a new 'Too much advantage'... I think we are all on agreement with it should be a foot unless dangerous

Moderator's note: No let's not start a new topic. The old one would need to be locked, otherwise some numpty would post to it and we'd have parallel discussions, and locking is not something the Mods do lightly. And we are not all in agreement, as Dodgey's next post demonstrates... At least Diligent doesn't agree and that is reason enough. 

So the threads have merged back together, to continue on the important subject, not so much that the ball is "Lifted?", but that the umpire might give "Too much advantage".

[dodgeyumpires]

IS there such a thing?

Is there such a thing as "too much advantage" dodgey?  Surely the whole point of advantage is that it's advantageous?  How can something be "too advantageous"?

(I'm not being clever here as I'm pretty sure that I'd blow exactly what you say you'd blow; I'm just not sure why...)

Has the lift off the tackler's stick forced the carrier to unintentionally play the ball with a leg?
But then the carrier is not disadvantaged, and he can continue away with the ball.
Play on?

I am getting ready to be told that's a terrible decision, which is what most players said when I followed that logic in about September 2008. It's a vivid memory. 

[dodgeyumpires]

A bit of quoting here, and some purely personal opinion... (im also trying to work it out in my head so bear with me)

Start of the 09/10 rule book

APPLYING THE RULES
The introduction of the self-pass from a free hit enables the game to flow more freely. However, this aim depends more generally on how the Rules as a whole are interpreted and applied. Players are encouraged to play to the Rules in the spirit of the game; umpires are encouraged to apply the Rules in the same spirit. This theme is developed in the Umpiring section of these Rules and includes guidance that :

• it is not necessary to penalise an offence if no benefi t is gained by the offender ;
• the flow of play should be anticipated and facilitated;
• unnecessary interruptions to the fl ow should be avoided.

Skilful play must be protected but this should be done in the overall spirit of the game and with regard to the balance of fair play.

And

APPLYING THE RULES
12.1 Advantage : a penalty is awarded only when a player or team has been disadvantaged by an opponent breaking the Rules.
If awarding a penalty is not an advantage to the team which did not break the Rules, play must continue.

Scenario is a defender has made a flat stick trap, the ball has deflected dangerously into an attackers leg, who has propelled the ball forward (past the defender, or at least enough to regain control) and then scored.

To me, (A) has been fulfilled, the attacker has offended by using his leg to propel the ball. And (B), the defender/s team who although offended first has just been disadvantaged because the attacker has retained possesion by using his leg.

In my mind a case of two wrongs dont ( in this scenario ) make a right. Two offences, dont cancel each other out.

Diligent, Is there a part Im missing? although unintentionally offending, he has still offended... is it still not an offence? The carrier hasnt been disadvantaged but the defending team has

Red, Im not sure... in this scenari I think the whistle needs to go. I think that is the right decision, perhaps not so much as "too much advantage." Is there such a thing as too much advantage... i dont have an answer to that one and cant think of an example. I dont know....

Purely my thoughts, anybody else?

[controller]

Too much advantage!!

I don't think you have too much advantage but I think you can have too many umpires who play the advantage and are too scared to call it back if it does not work?

The rules at the moment are written to speed up the game and make it better for the TV but some changed can make it near in impossible for it to be understood.

Advantage is part of the game that when it works, the umpire, he/she should give themselves a pat on the back because no one else will!

[Diligent]

Diligent, Is there a part Im missing? although unintentionally offending, he has still offended... is it still not an offence? The carrier hasnt been disadvantaged but the defending team has.

Yes. The part you are missing is:

9.15 Players must not force an opponent into offending unintentionally.

The rule does not care whether the player forces it accidentally or deliberately, it's about causing an opponent to offend when the opponent didn't mean to, and couldn't avoid it. It's a shame the note gives examples only of intentional forcing.

So if the tackler has broken 9.15, and the carrier's leg contact is what made that an offence, and the carrier is now moving away in possession, then the carrier has not been disadvantaged, so 12.1 says do not award a penalty; and to bring the carrier back for a free hit would not be an advantage, so 12.1 also says play must continue.

That said, I found out the hard way that this pedantic logic, although flawless, does not fly in the heat of a game. The players all see the kick forward, and cannot understand how the umpire can let play go, why the advantage is going that way, and what the umpire is thinking.
Everyone remembers that dud decision and who made it. It was Diligent! 

So yes the whistle has to blow despite everything Rule 12.1 has to say. That gives that umpire a chance to explain the forced offence. The carrier's team can have a jolly good moan about their spoiled advantage. Or you penalise the kick, and the carrier can moan it was manufactured.
Then everyone forgets it. 

So yes, I do agree the whistle must go. Never play advantage for forced unintentional. That's too much advantage.