9.12 new type of obstruction

 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!

[Grumpy]

 

[Pepe]

The interpretation of the obstruction rule in recent years has been wonderful for the game. We should not forget that only a short few years ago, the game was blighted by a very strict interpretation, which led to FHD for any hint of an attacker's body between ball and defender. A high percentage of free hits were given for obstruction. It led to a number of bad outcomes:

• Too much whistle, leading to a stop/start game flow
• Advantaged unskilful defenders
• Made life difficult for attackers
• Made our game difficult for the general public to understand and enjoy

Other sports such as soccer and basketball go even further in allowing shielding. i would not advocate that we follow that path and increase the amount of shielding, but we should recognise that the current interpretation is not unusual and is in line with other practices.

We should not allow players in crowded areas to spin multiple times to shield the ball. Such a "Whirling Dervish" technique sounds like it will lead to dangerous retaliations.

Otherwise, we should resist any moves to go backwards to the old days of "turning".

[Diligent]

I think it has been a dozen or more normal length years since 'turning' was penalised...

But apart from that I agree, Pepe.

[Diligent]

On another forum, Conundrum made the suggestion: "Maybe the practice of turning away with the ball in the circle and then hitting the ball through the position of the defender it has just been shielded from by this action will be penalised in the future."

In my view, that is a good point, that no one else here has made - so let's discuss the suggestion, not who made it.

I haven't seen this move very much recently, so it probably is being penalised: for danger, or forcing unintentional offences, as much as for obstruction. But perhaps the umpire can now be more definite in penalising it as obstruction.

[Grumpy]

Not sure about that as i think it happened in the EHL finals and the shot was allowed so I expect it to be allowed at International level and so on down the playing levels.
Again I watched a training session of elite players and the coach and the umpires allowed this to happen.

[keely]

In some situations, I call that for danger, colloquially known as "turn and fire". I don't see what it has to do with this "new type of obstruction" under 9.12.

[Diligent]

Fair enough, Keely.

Attending a Rules talk by Tex Lane next week so maybe he can explain the new guidance.

[redumpire]

Attending a Rules talk by Tex Lane next week so maybe he can explain the new guidance.

I understand he's one of the major contributors to the soon-to-be-published EH/NPUA guidance so he should be very informative.