Diving feet first

 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!

[Snoody]

...I can take him down provided I'm not charging through him...

No. Absolutely not. Please read the thread. Please read the rules. Please.....
Try that in a match and it'll be at least a PC, and possibly a PS and yellow.
You just can't take the opponent down, even if you're 'not charging through him.' It's very clear. It has absolutely nothing to do with your intentions - "Sorry, ump, I didn't mean to kick him up in the air." "Oh, that's okay, then. Play on..."
It's in the rules in black and white. It's in this thread in black and white.

[Goalie64]

Oh No, not again.

Thanks Snoody for the reply above.
I just didn't have the energy.

[Snoody]

It's like deja vu all over again, G64...
Think the previous responses must've been typed in invisible ink...

[gratcliffe_96]

i see where your coming from, and i can see what the rules day. i have just never seen an umpire blow this...ever.

[F1-mania]

No. Absolutely not. Please read the thread. Please read the rules. Please.....
Try that in a match and it'll be at least a PC, and possibly a PS and yellow.
You just can't take the opponent down, even if you're 'not charging through him.' It's very clear. It has absolutely nothing to do with your intentions - "Sorry, ump, I didn't mean to kick him up in the air." "Oh, that's okay, then. Play on..."
It's in the rules in black and white. It's in this thread in black and white.

No sorry, came through wrong there, re-read my reply and it was a bit off. And please don't go mental if I have this wrong again.
Say The player has limited possession when entering the D, but its still clear that he has it. I run in at an angle and clear the ball, not going near him(well not directly) but as I'm clearing the ball he runs into me, and goes sprawling. Surely that should be play on because I've cleared the ball, and there was no way that I could have avoided him running into me, without having let him past me? I mean what do they expect me to do, kick the ball, then either try go backwards or forwards quick enough so the attacker doesn't make contact with me? Thats next to impossible.

[Ninja GK]

Sounds like this is an issue of symantics. "Taking him out" is such an active phrase. The attacker going down is a secondary part of this play. If a keeper takes on an attacker 1-on-1 and clears the ball, cleanly, and the attacker takes a line and goes over the keeper, I would not expect, nor have I ever seen, a whistle on this. Poor officating or accepted part of the game?



 

[Cardinal Nation]

Hey, sorry to drag this thread up again, but I need something sorted and I figured this is the perfect place to do it.
I'll set the scene (this actually happened btw).

Playing in a match, my defense always plays quite high, but anyway, one of their strikers puts a through-ball for his teammate to run onto. By my calculations, the opposing striker would reach the ball about 2-3 feet inside my D. My defenders are toast at this point, no way for them to get back and make a play. Anyways, so I come charging out, hoping to clear the ball before the striker gets to it. I get to the ball first and kick it away (at all times remaining on my feet), but in the motion of running out for the ball, and due to the fact their striker was at full pelt at the time, a collision is unavoidable, we collide (though I tried [no really] to get out of his way). Umps blows up for a PC, and gives me a right rollicking about safety, telling me it will be a yellow next.

About 15 mins later, the exact (and I mean exact) same situation plays out before me. I react in exactly the same way, except after clearing the ball, I basically break my knees trying to stop and get out of his way. The striker, however, makes no such effort, and cold cocks me, shoulder right in my sternum, knocking the wind clean out of me and I go down hard. The umpire gives the other team a FH from the sideline where I kicked the ball out. I was, shall we say, distinctly unimpressed by this ruling, and when I got an explanation from him, I was told that 'the rule is designed to protect strikers, whereas you are protected by your chest plate, so fair's fair (paraphrasing slightly).

Was this umpire just a bit of a joker, or is that the actual breakdown of the rules (i.e. I am not allowed to initiate contact with a striker, but should he/she NFL shoulder charge me it's fair game)? Was what happened originally legal from my standpoint?

I only ask because that game (that ruling) put a real knock on my confidence, and I want this put to rest now

[Ninja GK]

I've been in scenario 1 many times and never had a problem with a PC. I've NEVER had scenario 2 happen. It's also not legal for the offensive player to impede or intentionally hit the goalie - obstruction at least. Usually both are trying to avoid the collision. Makes no difference who is wearing the more protective equipment.

[Cardinal Nation]

Makes no difference who is wearing the more protective equipment.

Yeah, in my head I explained this point succinctly and clearly to the umpire.

In reality, I blew a gasket. Not one of my proudest moments on the pitch, but my blood was up...

[LizGK]

i've only been playing goalie for a couple of years and at a very low level and maybe i'm speaking out of place with my lack of knowledge but i have to say, at the level i play at i've never seen anyone called up for this and i think that is where the problem lies.

too many people think it's acceptable and i agree with gratcliffe that you are even actively encouraged to do it. i think it's fairly obvious when you are going for the ball and when you are going for the legs and at any level you should expect punishment if your intention is to take them out.

speaking for myself i can honestly say the slides i'm proudest of are the ones where i get the ball with my stick and the forward is still standing, they are the most skillful, they look the best and you don't have some lump of a forward on top of you.

bringing this thread back to it's orginal title, diving feet first? that is absolutely ridiculous and i feel sory for the more exprienced players here tht hav to try and explain why this is all wrong!

[Inselaffen]

if i can get the ball and leave the CF in a lump on the floor then all the better.
I didnt switch from playing prop-forward in rugby to play a non-contact sport. keepers take a risk getting their bodies in the way of a fast hard ball. CF's put themselves at risk going in on the keeper. seems a fair balance

[philthy]

Hate to break it to you mate,
Hockey ain't rugby!

 

[Inselaffen]

I made the switch from rugby to hockey 24 years ago, have played in 7 countries and seen keepers in all of them take the player after taking the ball.
as far as I'm concerned its always been part of the sport

[Goalie64]

No, Inselaffen.
Your attitude is wrong, wrong, wrong.


Sometimes I despair.

[Snoody]

What philthy said.
What G64 said.
And what I've repeatedly said on this thread.

If you want to play rugby, play rugby.