Answered Can a ball ever result in FHD for being dangerous to the goalie?

Discussion in 'Umpiring Corner' started by sanabas, Jul 16, 2017.

  1. sanabas

    sanabas FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Messages:
    2,643
    Likes Received:
    989
    It's come up a couple of times lately.

    If a player actually hits the goalie with stick while trying to play the ball, that's FHD, for sure.

    If a goalie has landed badly, has back exposed to ball, helmet has fallen off, whatever, that can certainly be considered potentially dangerous, and most likely PC.

    But what about a ball played towards a goalie who is (or at least should be) paying attention, who is facing the ball? Is there ever a case for FHD in that case? Goalie on ground, ball 1m away, ball is belted into them. Ball hit hard at the goal, perhaps in the air, keeper moves to save it, a forward manages to reach in and get a tiny bit of stick on the ball, enough to deflect it past the glove that would have saved it and straight into the keeper's head. Close range deflection off the ground and flush in the groin. Chip shot from the spot which would have hit the face if the keeper didn't duck. A shot smashed at a sliding keeper that hits them in the kneecap and sees them need to leave the field. Do you call FHD for any of them?

    Being a goalie, I'm biased. And I say no, they are all play on. That there is no such thing as LEA by a keeper. There is no such thing as a ball played towards a 'ready' keeper that should be seen as an offence for danger. There IS 'danger' in the sense that the keeper can get hurt, but that's just part of being a keeper. Changing direction while running is dangerous in that sense too, sometimes knees can give way.

    There are times where it is really poor play by a forward, particularly hitting the ball straight into a prone keeper when they could be scoring a goal. But it's also instinct, forwards aren't built for thinking. ;) They see ball on ground in circle, often they hit ball towards the net as hard as they can. It's potential grounds for a keeper to get upset with a forward. But I don't see a justification for it to be FHD.

    From one of the recent threads:

    I think deflecting the ball onto a keeper's face should be deemed safe, every time. As a keeper, I'm happy to have made the save, even if it was with face. I wear a helmet in the knowledge that a ball coming at my face is a possibility.

    What do people think?
     
  2. redumpire

    redumpire FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,393
    Likes Received:
    2,566
    No.
    Agreed.
     
    GK13, Mick Mason and AJF like this.
  3. lsfreaks

    lsfreaks FHF Starter

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2015
    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    8
    yes, Yes and YES

    If keeper between sticks PC, if outside the goals and ball passed around him play-on, it's up to the Ump to interpret the danger, havin said that that if the backs exposed and a player takes a shot he shouldn't be allowed on the field as he's out to hurt people and not play a sport :mad:

    Prone keeper on the ground... 1st shot shouldn't have time to wind up so prob a deflection or keeper sliding, if 2nd/3rd shot FHD as IMO he's looking to "hurt" the keeper cause in 26yrs in goal i'm still to see a ball go through my body ;)
    Deflection as described has been delt with and FHD if it's a shot from inside "D" good save and play on :D
    Chip and shot into a sliding keeper, keeper sliding into shot so he takes the risko_O
     
  4. Martindk

    Martindk FHF Top Player

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    632
    Likes Received:
    39
    Location:
    Copenhagen
    So you not allowed to shot on goal if gk turns his back toward the attacker ?
     
  5. lsfreaks

    lsfreaks FHF Starter

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2015
    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    8
    If us keepers do that then why not just go around him:D But that's not whats been said, It says "If a goalie has landed badly, has back exposed to ball". He has no way to "protect" himself :rolleyes:
     
    Michael Byrne and Martindk like this.
  6. sanabas

    sanabas FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Messages:
    2,643
    Likes Received:
    989
    And I also said that should be PC for a situation likely to lead to danger. Same as a ball that pops into the air off a defender in the D is. Especially at lower levels, you blow the PC before anyone gets a chance to take a swing.

    Most likely they just didn't notice. One of my forwards this week ran the ball into the D, had the goalie advancing, had an unmarked player on the post. If she passed it, we dribble it into an open goal. She had a shot, hit the goalie's pads. Forwards are simply not going to notice exactly how the goalie is positioned 5m away from them.


    So you'd also card the forward then? Since you're not blowing the whistle for danger, you're blowing the whistle for a deliberate attempt to injure the keeper?

    In however many years I've played, however many attempts there have been to hit the ball through me, I'm yet to have a case where I thought the forward was actually trying to hurt me. It's always been either poor decision making (mostly due to lack of vision) or poor execution.

    Why?

    So why does this idea seem to persist? It seems a more obvious answer than the other traditional argument about danger & shots. But we seem to keep having people suggest that a goalie should get a FHD, or reports of umpires actually giving a FHD, for a goalie being in the way of a hard hit ball from close range. Am I just imagining/overstating the sentiment for a ball being dangerous to a keeper?
     
  7. philthy

    philthy FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    3,931
    Likes Received:
    398
    Location:
    Oxford, UK
    NO!
    The keeper's job is to get in the way of the ball! If you get in the way of the ball poorly and get a whack somewhere unpadded it hurts. But it's not the forward's fault! If you expose your back to the ball and get a whack, it's going to really hurt. Still not the forward's fault.

    (Only exception is if a keeper's helmet comes off while they're on the ground. That's different, blow a PC really quick - or an FHD if it came off through a foul by the forward. Heads are precious)
     
  8. Nij

    Nij FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    May 22, 2012
    Messages:
    1,597
    Likes Received:
    546
    So are spines and kidneys. An exposed back needs to be treated the same way as an exposed head.
     
    Krebsy and Michael Byrne like this.
  9. philthy

    philthy FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    3,931
    Likes Received:
    398
    Location:
    Oxford, UK
    I agree. They are.

    But I disagree that you stop play because the keeper exposes their back to the ball. You drill into keepers not to turn their back - it's really dangerous to turn your back on the ball. But that doesn't mean you give the keeper a free hit because they messed up and turned their back...

    It's a risky sport... you do everything you can as an individual to minimise the risk you are placing yourself in (by spending a ridiculous amount of money on shiny pads). But fundamentally you are there to put yourself between the person hitting the ball really hard and the goal.
     
  10. sanabas

    sanabas FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Messages:
    2,643
    Likes Received:
    989
    Keeper flinches from a shot and exposes back, that's play on. But I'm with @Nij , I'd likely treat a keeper who was on the deck with their back to play like one who was on the deck and had lost their helmet. Particularly if they've landed awkwardly, if they're not instantly rolling over to face the right way and find the ball. Which is not giving the keeper a free hit, it's doing the same as you said about an exposed head, most likely going to be PC for creating a dangerous situation.
     
  11. Gingerbread

    Gingerbread FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,524
    Likes Received:
    434
    I don't think any umpires would suggest FHD for a goalie who messed up, it would be a PC to save the keeper and not disadvantage the attack
     
  12. Badger666

    Badger666 FHF Top Player

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2016
    Messages:
    199
    Likes Received:
    68
    Location:
    London
    I honestly don't think danger would be blown in a goalies favour ever. Yes we still get hurt, but we're viewed as immortal due to all the padding.

    And generally, if a goalie gets injured it's either they didn't make the save they should've, or dumb luck, it happens. It's part of being a hockey goalie, you sign that waver when you put the kit on.

    I had one time where the umpire called PC so I turned my back to talk to my defenders only for the decision to be changed to a long and the ball was drilled (wide) at the goal. I was furious as my back was exposed and the umpire didn't deem it appropriate to tell me it wasn't a short.

    On the other side, Ive had FHDs blown in my favour when someone has belted me with a stick (a couple on purpose, a couple not) and I've literally not felt a thing.

    For me, the problem isn't danger for a keeper, its obstruction that seems to happen a lot, which i understand is fairly hard, but most things are generally blown in the attackers favour in the D anyway so.
     
  13. redumpire

    redumpire FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,393
    Likes Received:
    2,566
    I have absolutely no idea!
     
  14. NicfromSweden

    NicfromSweden FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    9,661
    Likes Received:
    237
    Location:
    Göteborg Sweden
    I would like to add a couple of indoor scenarios to the debate.

    Gk is positioned to the left of the goal with his left foot on the end line attacker is positioned with his back to the sideboard ball is close to the end line gk has stick flat against the ground and his right legguard dropped to the ground.

    1) player plays the ball hard in to the stick of the gk.

    2) players plays the ball hard in to the legguard of the gk.

    3) in this scenario keeper is down on the ground with his feet on the end line and player plays the ball hard in to his chest

    4) The scenario could be applied to outdoor as well with the change that the player plays the ball hard high towards the P-spot in to the chest of the keeper who is standing up.

    Is there danger in any/all of these situations and if there is on one but not the other then what is the difference?
     
  15. redumpire

    redumpire FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,393
    Likes Received:
    2,566
    In my view, Nic, no, none of those situations is dangerous.
     
  16. NicfromSweden

    NicfromSweden FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    9,661
    Likes Received:
    237
    Location:
    Göteborg Sweden
    So drilling does not apply to keepers at all?
     
  17. sanabas

    sanabas FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Messages:
    2,643
    Likes Received:
    989
    I don't think any of those are dangerous, either.

    Drilling isn't a rule in outdoor, so no FHD for any of them in outdoor.

    Indoor, maybe FHD. But it'd be FHD for drilling, not FHD for danger. I don't know the indoor rules particularly well, is there even a section in there about danger? Since in all cases except a shot at goal, anything even vaguely dangerous will already be FH for raising the ball. My instinctive call is to say it shouldn't be FHD for drilling it at a goalie in indoor, as that's basically just a shot at goal. But as I said, indoor isn't something I umpire much, and so those calls aren't ones I ever need to make.
     
  18. Folmer

    Folmer FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    2,382
    Likes Received:
    534
    Drilling the GKs stick as part of a shot at goal is in my opinion not what the rule is meant for. If it were a defenders stick, then it is drilling. It was put in place to prevent defenders' hands being broken and accidental lifts from bad stops (also danger).
    It is very stupid of the forward (what else is new) as they have about 100% more chance if they lift it, but that is a different issue.
     
  19. redumpire

    redumpire FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,393
    Likes Received:
    2,566
    There is no specific indoor rule against drilling. There is a rule that generally forbids dangerous play:
    This note then follows that rule:
    That note applies to all players, including GKs. However:
    1. The "associated risk of injury" is, in my opinion, much lower when a fully kitted GK is involved as they are wearing kit specifically designed to prevent injury. For me, it would have to be a clear and deliberate attempt to injure the GK for me to blow in the GK's favour if an attacker plays the ball into them.
    2. "Trying to play the ball deliberately through " the GK is fine by me if it's part of a legitimate attempt to score or pass the ball. Again, if it's a deliberate action designed to hurt the GK - or an attempt to drive the ball through the body of a GK lying on the floor - then I would expect to see it penalised.
    Do others agree?
     
    Nij and careeman like this.
  20. NicfromSweden

    NicfromSweden FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    9,661
    Likes Received:
    237
    Location:
    Göteborg Sweden
    Can a player on purpose play the ball high in to another player when not shooting towards the goal? In that case a player could for some crazy reason get a pass on the goalline but instead of scoring shoot the ball high in the back of the keeper standing lets say on the P-spot and not get penalised because after all the gk got pads and is immune to danger?

    I agree that in many situations the danger rule does not apply to keepers but I do not think the keepers are excluded.

    I do think a GK can be "drilled" in indoor hockey one of the reasons why it is important is because otherwise players can "search" for a pc, also what if there is a defender standing behind the gk who is getting his stick drilled hard raising the ball which cause the defender to get the ball in his face. Just because it might not be dangerous to the keeper does not mean it is not a dangerous action.

    Also if the gk is lying on the floor, the attacker has a way out of the situation he can not take a shoot on goal then what is the purpose on letting him smash the ball as powerful as he can in the chest/neck/groin of the keeper? In my way of seeing this it is the same as drilling, the attacker should play the ball around not through the defender? In front of the goal I think it is another situation because the attacker can claim he was trying to score but in a situation where the shoot on goal does not apply then what does the game benefit from one player potentially hurting another player?

    I really think the indoor part of this thread bares a lot of resemble to a discussion we had in the past regarding "locking the ball" in my view (the german view) the defenders created the danger by not giving the attacker a safe option out of the situation, I was told I was wrong back then but then the wording changed to fit the "german way" of umpiring the situation.

    I just don´t understand why we would not want to play the game as safe as possible if it does not really effect the game? None of these situations were situations where the player could score and there was always another option how to play the ball safely.
     
    lsfreaks likes this.

Share This Page