Change to the new 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!

[Diligent]

Yes Grumpy. Players often do things their coach wishes they wouldn't. 
But that's for the coach to punish, not the umpire. 


Blimey Red! I thought for a moment you agreed with Deegum's "no exceptions quoted", which would mean you disagreed with Keely's "briefed to play on".     But now I've disentangled the various quotes it's clear you don't. Phew!

You might reconcile it by noticing that the guidance on handling opponents within 5m (13.2 b) is right next to the 'all players' rule (13.2 c), and thinking that what's fair for the opponent should be fair for the team-mate. That's what I did.


 

[redumpire]

Blimey Red! I thought for a moment you agreed with Deegum's "no exceptions quoted", which would mean you disagreed with Keely's "briefed to play on".     But now I've disentangled the various quotes it's clear you don't. Phew!

Previous post amended Diligent - hopefully a little clearer now...?

[Grumpy]

I expect the disengaged players to have an effect by their presense by putting doubt in the defenders mind about their positioning.  I also expect if my team is out of possission to influebce the players in possession by stace, body language and not get carded. Doing very well at this certain players ill always be influenced  and move the ball into an area i want the ball to go to.

[kaiwawao]

Missed the "no exceptions" bit of the post I was commenting on 

[deegum]

2 Applying the rules

2.2 Advantage :
a it is not necessary for every offence to be penalised when no benefit is gained by the offender;

I am saying simply that if an attacker is within  5m in this situation he is breaching the rule- but it need not always be penalised. However at international levels it is probably intentional , as Grumpy, a highish  level coach, points out.

The attack is probably gaining advantage by taking the FH before he( the attacker() has left/ had time to and more importantly defenders have had time to.The attackers gain extra advantage by taking the free before teammates have had time to move/moved out of the prohibited area.
This means that the FH can be taken before the defenders have had tinme too move.- a disadvantage beyond that specified in the rules.

That is not to say that every time an attacker is with in 5 he should be penalised- a 5th team game is different from an international, and even in internationals it may not always be necessary.



That is not pedantry, that is not  slowing up the game- it is merely  applying the rules even-handedly.
.


It is not perverse either Diligent. I'm pointing out the unfair advantage that can be gained.




Please don't interpret" keeping the game moving" with " ignore the rules if it only disadvantages the defence"

Perhaps : "the free hit need not be delayed if an attacker is with in 5m, so long as all defenders are in position outside the 5m"
would be a reasonable, flow friendly way of applying the rule.

[jtsoldier]

Perhaps : "the free hit need not be delayed if an attacker is with in 5m, so long as all defenders are in position outside the 5m"
would be a reasonable, flow friendly way of applying the rule.

Though not explicitly stated, I am sure this is the intent...

[deegum]

Though not explicitly stated, I am sure this is the intent...

That's not what Keely said,

If the attacker is not influencing the play by being within 5m, just as with a defender who is within 5m but not influencing the play, we have been briefed to play on.

Given that the "ignoring" enables an earlier take......

[Twister]

Made any indentation in that brick wall yet?

The way I'd see it is if the attacker is within 5m and the attack gain advantage from that (e.g. by passing that player the ball) I'd penalise.  If not I'd play on.

The advantage is to the defence - that player cannot get involved in that phase of the game - therefore the defence are one man up in the circle.

Ball passed to another player - that phase of the game is over, the attacker who was within 5m is now "live" again.
Ball self passed - the attacker within 5m cannot become engaged until the self pass is over - i.e. ball travels 5m.

But I don't think as umpires we actually need to intervene unless that player becomes engaged.  And we can manage most of this through talking to the players.

[deegum]

So the play of the defenders is not influenced by the presence of an attacker within 5m of the FH and 5/110 m of the circle?

[Diligent]

That's a good point Deegum.

When an opponent is within 5m we need only check for interference by tackling or intercepting.
When a team-mate is within 5m we also need to be aware of influences like drawing a defender to mark or close them down.

But when the team-mate within 5m does not influence the play, then neither should the umpire.

[redumpire]

So the play of the defenders is not influenced by the presence of an attacker within 5m of the FH and 5/110 m of the circle?

Possibly, but not definitely.

[nerd_is_the_word]

So the play of the defenders is not influenced by the presence of an attacker within 5m of the FH and 5/110 m of the circle?

Although im more leaning towards keelies side. In my view if they are dragging a defender out of play then it is a penalty.

To me I probably wouldnt blow it in the case where an extremely quick FH was taken (assuming that the player didnt receive a pass). As defenders probably wouldnt have had time to be affected by the presence of the attacker. Where as if it was a more built up situation then the defenders would generally shift when the attacker did

[redumpire]

In my view if they are dragging a defender out of play then it is a penalty.

Absolutely.  But it would be wrong to assume that they were doing this simply by being there.  

I think the whole thing is very nicely summarised in the England Hockey / NPUA guide to the new rules that Keely has posted elsewhere on the Forum, i.e.:

Restarts with players within 5 metres
The FIH guidance is that restarts need not be delayed if there are players within 5 metres who, according to the rules, should not be – providing they are not attempting to play the ball or influence play. This obviously includes opponents and, if the restart is within the attacking 23 metres area, team-mates of the person taking the restart.

Even if team-mates of the taker are within 5 metres for a quick restart in the attacking 23 metres area, the restart need not be delayed if this / these team-mates are not influencing play.

Management of 5 Metres
The new rules mean that all restarts (free-hits, sideline balls, corners) can be taken much more quickly than before, as they can be taken by the first player to get to the ball without waiting for supporting team-mates.  Because the restarts can be taken more quickly, there are likely to be more situations – all over the pitch – where a player is in a position to take a restart when opposing players are within 5 metres.  Opponents still within 5 metres when the restart is taken must not interfere with the play until they have moved 5 metres away from where the restart was taken, or the ball has moved 5 metres.

Good umpires have always been very strict with any opponent preventing a restart, particularly when they do so at a time when the taker has an option to pass to an unmarked colleague. With the new self pass option, the taker always has the option of a pass to an unmarked player as, by definition, they can take a self pass and, as every opponent needs to be 5 metres away (or not interfere) the taker should always be “unmarked”.  You need to be very firm to ensure that opponents do not interfere with restarts and punish offenders accordingly. Personal penalties (a verbal caution, warning or suspension) would be appropriate in all cases where the offender’s actions are deliberate, particularly where the offender’s actions prevent a good attacking opportunity. You should also recognise that a good attacking opportunity can exist from many different areas of the pitch. Within the attacking 23 metres area, an opponent preventing a restart would normally be punished by the award of a penalty corner, in addition to the appropriate personal penalty.

However, some players will try to take unfair advantage by attempting to take a restart very quickly and moving the ball directly into an opponent who has had no chance to retreat, in an attempt to prompt you to take action against that opponent. You need to be vigilant to ensure that you are not “conned” in this way. You have a number of options available to deal in such cases. A retake with a warning to the taker might be appropriate in the first case but you also have the option of awarding a free hit against the taker for more obvious attempts to deliberately manufacture offences, or for repeated infringements. You should only reverse a free hit for a player taking the ball directly into an opponent when you are absolutely sure that the action was intentional to manufacture an offence.

Because of the new rules, particularly the effect of the rules for restarts within the attacking 23m area, all teams will practise both attacking and defending options in training. It is important that umpires allow players to be 5 metres away and not insist that players are 6 or 7 metres away. Forcing players to be significantly more than 5 metres away is as bad as allowing them to be within 5 metres for the affect on both attacking and defending options at these restarts. Players and coaches will be (rightly) aggrieved if the things they have practised and trained for are not allowed by an umpire who insists on a greater distance than 5 metres.

Managing the 5 metres all over the pitch is the key to the self pass working. Understand the options the player has to play the ball, and then make sure that no opponent within 5 metres influences their ability to take one of those options.  Remember that this includes the centre pass where, in the past, umpires have not been too vigilant on players from the opposition being 5 metres away. It is more important now that there are more options for the team taking the centre pass.

This guidance has been issued for all umpires in England, not just the "elite" panels and it has been endorsed by the FIH.  I think it is very useful.

[nerd_is_the_word]

yes redumpire i agree, simply by standing there they arent nessecarily affecting play. Hence why I added the second part.

Its obviously a case of "you have to be there " (as always), but most higher levels umpires would know what affects play and what doesnt. For the beginner who doesnt really know, or is unsure, simply make them take it again.

[Diligent]

I think the whole thing is very nicely summarised in the England Hockey / NPUA guide to the new rules that Keely has posted elsewhere on the Forum.

This guidance has been issued for all umpires in England, not just the "elite" panels and it has been endorsed by the FIH.  I think it is very useful.

Unfortunately almost 'all umpires in England' remain unaware of this excellent guidance, because England Hockey has not got around to posting it on its website. Maybe the web-wallah is on vacation?

Luckily readers of FHF can click to Keely's link (in Calgary) to see it, but the saga is reminiscent of the opening pages of Douglas Adams' 'The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy':
 a local authority that displayed its plans for a bypass in the cellar,
    where the lights had gone,
       and so had the stairs.
The notice was 'on display' in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet
   stuck in a disused lavatory
      with a sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard.