5 metre requirements, a different approach ...worth considering?

 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!

[deegum]

Would you expect FIFA, for example, to serioulsy consider every suggestion that was sent to them by every nutter that phones BBC

Big difference is that FIFA don't rewrite the rule book every few years, With unexplained deletions, ...........

Or make " little " changes in wording that leave you wondering....." what for? What is the significance of that?"
Or mandatory experiments that have us on this forum trying to fathom them out.

[redumpire]

Big difference is that FIFA don't rewrite the rule book every few years

But when they do change the emphasis of the laws without actually changing a word of them - the tackle from behind, "simulation", offside - they don't twist and turn and change things everytime a pundit says the new interpretations are ridiculous.  They listen to what the various FAs, senior coaches and players think and act accordingly.  I've never actually seen Sepp Blatter or Michel Platini down at Jericho Lane playing fields in Liverpool, asking the hung-over, Sunday morning, wanna-be-Stephen-Gerrards what their take is on the new offside rule and whether there are any changes they'd like to see made...

Or mandatory experiments that have us on this forum trying to fathom them out.

Ah yes, of course.  They should run all rule changes past our little self-selecting coterie of aficionados here on FHF so that they know exactly were they've gone wrong.  Never mind the HRB and all the people they consult when rule changes are introduced; never mind the coaches and players they talk to.  HOW DARE they not speak to the anonymous experts on FHF?

[justin]

Yes, how very dare they ?

However this "little self-selecting coterie of aficionados here on FHF" does contain some very experienced, skilled and highly-qualified umpires and players, as well as some very sharp minds (and a few unnecessarily sharp tongues )

Some members even fall into more than one of these 'categories'

I think that nearly all active members are passionate about the progress of the game.

If I were on the HRB, I'd certainly make time, at least to read some of the contributions in the hockey forums. (Perhaps they do)

Sometimes those at the 'sharp end' and the 'grass roots' do have something worthwhile to contribute.....even if it's only a mixture of metaphors

I was hopeful (but not optimistic) that this wouldn't turn into a pro/anti-HRB rant

I also realised that the slightly critical tone of some of the points in #4 might ruffle feathers among some ....it's not personal, merely an observation that I believe the demands of the way it is currently applied are beyond the capabilities of many (most?) umpires, with resulting inconsistencies.

[redumpire]

However this "little self-selecting coterie of aficionados here on FHF" does contain some very experienced, skilled and highly-qualified umpires and players, as well as some very sharp minds

It may very well do, but as there's no way of proving who any of us are, why would anybody listen to us?  Although I happen to know that the person representing herself on here as Keely Dunn is Keely Dunn the Canadian FIH umpire, anybody but anybody could have taken that as their user name and sat spouting al kinds of rubbish on here.  Equally, there's nothing to stop me changing my user name to Jason Lee or Mauritz Hendricks and stating some very strong views that would have nothing to do with either of those gentlemen...

If I'm ill I go to see a person who I can be reasonably sure is a qualified doctor.  If I want a second opinion I seek out someone who's a leader in their field.  I don't go on-line and take the word of an "experienced, skilled and highly-qualified" amatuer, even if they're claiming that they're a world-renowned expert from behind a pseudonym.

If I were on the HRB, I'd certainly make time, at least to read some of the contributions in the hockey forums. (Perhaps they do)

I'm sure they do, though it must be difficult to listen to what anybody says when they spend so much of their time saying that you're crap and don't know what you're doing.

I hold no particular torch for the HRB, but I do think that they do a pretty good job in moving the game on.  In my experience, away from one or two voices on this Board and George Brink's slowly-dying Talking Hockey site, most hockey people seem to share that view...

(I hope that wasn't too much of a 'rant'...)

[Resslys Agent]

Although I happen to know that the person representing herself on here as Keely Dunn is Keely Dunn the Canadian FIH umpire, anybody but anybody could have taken that as their user name and sat spouting al kinds of rubbish on here.

And she does
only joking Keels!  Hope Canadia is nice and warm, will miss you for Brum tomorrow!

[justin]

And she does
only joking Keels!  Hope Canadia is nice and warm, will miss you for Brum tomorrow!

Ha....safely( for the moment and for you!) on t'other side of the pond, eh, RA?

[justin]

"(I hope that wasn't too much of a 'rant'...)"

Well, yes, really...the insults started at about post #5 and then we got into 'unpleasantries' about the likelihood of the HRB's taking the slightest notice of any discussions we have here .... there were a few attempts to continue discussing the proposals, but generally it's been all disappointingly downhill...after what I thought was a mainly constructive start 

[deegum]

I think it is a legitimate  continuing criticism of the FIH to say that amendments/ deletions  are  not explained.

I'm sure we can all think of one or two subjects where there has been  strenuous  disagreement over years, and silence on them from the FIH , where a short  statement would clarify matters, even if not to the satisfaction of all.

[redumpire]

it must be difficult to listen to what anybody says when they spend so much of their time saying that you're crap and don't know what you're doing.

[deegum]

 

it must be difficult to listen to what anybody says when they spend so much of their time saying that you're crap and don't know what you're doing.

I know the feeling , red.

[justin]

I think I'm done here ...thanks for reading....those who did...and for the constructive feedback.

I understand that I'll get nowhere with #4 but don't see any sensible argument against #5.

This is not YAGE ...only 'resignation' (in both senses) with/from this thread.

Just finally to summarise the bullet points.....for those who don't wish to read the 1000 words at the beginning:

• Introduce a requirement that a free-hit awarded to the attacking side within 5m of the circle must be played out of the dashed circle before it can be played into the shooting circle.
• Remove the requirement that all players be 5m from a free-hit awarded in the 23m area, revert
to defenders only to be 5m.
• Remove the requirement that the ball be moved 5m, if a self-pass within the attacked 23 is used, before the ball is played into the circle
• Remove the prohibition on propelling the ball into the circle directly from a free awarded in the 23m area.
• Play advantage if an attacker chooses to take a self-pass without allowing opponents sufficient time to retreat 5m, thus allowing opponents to engage immediately the ball is played.
• Do not try to award both an advantage play and a free-hit at the same time – it's one or the other, and with a free-hit there are criteria to be met by both sides which require time.
• Allow a direct lift of a 'free-hit' with any stroke except a hit.

[Neo]

Sorry to come late into this - whilst it is possible to quickly scan, considered words can take longer to compose.

And I don't quite have them yet, but my overview of the changes you propose is that it has to be put in this context:
 that we have one set of rules that have to be adaptable enough to be applied to the wide range of hockey competition skills from beginner up to international standard.

I can see problems with at least a couple of your suggestions in the lower leagues that may work against the principle of protection against the danger of the powerful strike directly into the circle.