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. lsfreaks

    lsfreaks FHF Starter

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2015
    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    8
    I agree with with what Nic has said, the problem as I see it with regards to "No Danger for a keeper" is very much the same as many Ump's see a "Shot at Goal" can never be dangerous (I know... I KNOW) the questions are one and the same... Player SAFETY.
    The padding we wear aren't for our safety as has been pointed out by for us to be able to stand there and try and keep the 186g piece of lead outta the goals using the skills we have picked up over the years.

    "Emphasis is placed on safety. Everyone involved in the
    game must act with consideration for the safety of others."
    Pg 2 of The Rules ;)
     
  2. careeman

    careeman FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2013
    Messages:
    526
    Likes Received:
    402
    If it's not about safety then why wear it.

    Abso-bloody-lutley
     
  3. SPetitt

    SPetitt FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2013
    Messages:
    1,365
    Likes Received:
    334
    Location:
    Gloucestershire, Buckinghamshire & Costa del Sol
    There is a very fine line between a ball which is hit hard at a vulnerable part of another player's body with intent to injure, and such a hit which is simply reckless ... i.e. the striker just does not appear to care, is not unaware of the other's presence, and just hits the player when other options are clearly available..
    I personally wouldn't usually like to try to read that player's intention, but would give(and have given) a FH against him/her and a verbal warning to take more care. Any similar repetition would be carded. Dangerous play occurs when there is a high risk of serious injury resulting.(admittedly that's not often for a Gk)

    So, if the player who's hit was a GK I would take the same action, but only if the hit actually injured the 'keeper e.g. hit him/her in the throat/neck, or came dangerously close to it ... I know of a GK who ha the ball lifted at him,(on a soft-ish grass pitch, so almost certainly an intentional undercut) from near the penalty spot, by a vet ex-county level player. It hit his face cage and dented it, a few cm above his throat guard, which, had the shot been those few cm lower, would most likely not hjave saved him from serious injury.
    The striker had the skill, experience and opportunity to place the ball wide of the GK, or dribble it around him ... but he didn't.
    The umpire gave a FHD .... I think if he'd played-on, there would have been a red card for the 'keeper, who had to be 'restrained'!

    The point is that one should never say 'never' ... the guidelines have been set-out by previous posters, but each case should be taken on its merits.
    ....we have been told enough times that the rules are 'just a framework', etc, and that common sense should prevail.
    The requirement that players must play with due regard to the safety of others is in the rule book and should take precedence.
     
  4. sanabas

    sanabas FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Messages:
    2,643
    Likes Received:
    989
    Makes sense to me.

    So if the forward was that good, could simply score a goal if he chose to, why didn't he?

    If the goalie needs to be 'restrained' just because the forward's had the temerity to hit the ball hard at the net at face height, a shot that presumably would have been a goal if it was 6 inches left or right of where it actually went, then the goalie deserves a card.
     
  5. NicfromSweden

    NicfromSweden FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    9,661
    Likes Received:
    237
    Location:
    Göteborg Sweden
    In my opinion fieldhockey is already a dangerous game and there is no need to add more risk to it than necessary.

    If the GK was outside the circle but within the 25, would you think it would be ok for the attacker to lift the ball chest height towards the keeper from close range?

    The same way a postman during a PC accepts the risk of injury during the PC, however he might not accept the same risk if the ball was in open play and was passed head height across the D and he might accept even less risk if it was half way up the pitch.

    As a GK I accept the risk when the attacker is trying to take a legitime shot on goal, but I do not accept him putting me or anyone else in danger especially when the action is not beneficial for the attacker. This is the same reason we do not allow shots after the whistle or allow two people to shoot at once during practice. Just because the GK has pads does not make them immune to danger.

    Regarding the "drilling situation" I think people should ask themselves 1) do we really need more situations where people can "go get a PC"? 2) If the GK or any other player for that matter has positioned himself with the stick flat against the ground does the game benefit from having people trying to hit the ball as hard as possible through the stick? There is more or less only one outcome from the situation, a high ball.

    Look at this example, defender 1 has his stick set to the ground inside of the circle on the left side of the goal close to the end line, the attacker has the ball at the pushing it forcefully towards the P-spot hitting defenders 1´s stick deflecting the ball in to defender 2´s face. In this situation we would see a FHD and most likely a card. Just switch "defender 1" to "keeper", are you guys telling me in this exact same situation you would blow a PC? If yes in what way does the game benefit from allowing this? The attacker does not gain any disadvantage, the keeper does not get any advantage but we have minimized the danger I can not see how that can be a bad thing?

    In a messy situation where both a defender and a keeper has their sticks positioned flat against the floor and the ball is drilled in to one of them hitting defender 2 in to the face, the umpire can not see which stick the ball deflected high from, what decision will he make? In this case some people might respond a bully, however would it not be simpler just to see drilling as drilling no matter what? Either way defender 2 ended up with the ball in his face and the only one to blame was the attacker.
     
    #25 NicfromSweden, Jul 18, 2017 at 7:18 AM
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2017 at 7:35 AM
    lsfreaks likes this.
  6. Stephen65

    Stephen65 FHF Legend

    Joined:
    May 11, 2010
    Messages:
    508
    Likes Received:
    130
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    I agree GK gear is there for safety.

    Depending on the piece of gear its also there for use for playing the ball/defending the goal. The kickers, pads and hand protectors are the obvious examples. Other pieces of gear (like the box) I would rather not be playing the ball with.
     
  7. careeman

    careeman FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2013
    Messages:
    526
    Likes Received:
    402
    Agree and I suspect that GKs wouldn't put their bodies in the way without the protection so wearing it affords the option to do so even if the outcome can smart a bit.

    As GKs often do choose to smother shots on the basis that they are 'protected' I find it a little contradictory to then start appealing that an attacker hitting the ball hard at them in that situation is dangerous.

    Which brings us full circle to the examples where the attacker misses the ball etc which I totally agree are dangerous and should be penalised in a GKs favour.
     
    Martindk and Nij like this.
  8. lsfreaks

    lsfreaks FHF Starter

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2015
    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    8
    Well put "choose to smother"... there is a big difference between having choosing to do something and not. If a keepers chooses to smother the ball his positioning is totally different - leading with pads/gloves, body tense expecting the hit whereas saving a PC hit and getting a rebound hit to the chest against a relaxed frame is looking for trouble. As we are outnumbered 10:1 it's hard for non keepers to grasp this concept, Nic and I see the world a lot different from the rest and perceive the danger of our position differently.

    As this is a "grey area" in the rules just as "shots" are with regards to danger there is losta views and it is/will be up to the Ump on the day to decide what they will blow. :rolleyes:
     
    SPetitt likes this.
  9. Krebsy

    Krebsy FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2014
    Messages:
    1,986
    Likes Received:
    768
    Location:
    Bristol
    Why a PC?
     
  10. nemo

    nemo FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,930
    Likes Received:
    573
    Location:
    Coventry
    When I first started playing in the heady days of cane pads and leather kickers it wasn't unusual on the grit surfaces that once you went to ground a striker would just dribble / push / strike the ball into your body then claim a pc by saying the ball was unplayable. This seems to have fallen , thankfully , out of the game and umpires seem more clued up that if a keeper does have the ball somewhere under their body and moves quick enough for the ball to be back in play it isn't a automatic pc/ps. But that said I've made a save and had the ball bouncing pretty much on chest as I m lying on the deck to have the striker coming in swinging his stick baseball style , luckily for me he connected with the ball and not part of my ever increasing widening body or head , he scored , I did nt get injured but I did feel that his actions could have been dangerous and I wasn't exactly happy as I felt I had to move my head away from his swing , helmet or not it was a natural reaction.....plus they were already well ahead in the game ....meh
     
  11. Nij

    Nij FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    May 22, 2012
    Messages:
    1,597
    Likes Received:
    546
    This is as much due to advantage thinking as anything else. If a goalkeeper has time to find it and remove it, the ball is obviously not trapped and/or nobody is being obstructed.

    Could have been dangerous, yes. But you were unhurt and they scored a great follow-up shot. Such is good hockey.

    Forwards are far from the brightest group of player on the field ;) but they have a very simple job: hit ball in goal. And they usually manage to do it fine when given the chance.
     
    nemo likes this.
  12. careeman

    careeman FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2013
    Messages:
    526
    Likes Received:
    402
    I'm sorry if my experiences of playing in goal don't elevate me to your lofty position.

    I'll immediately cease using my experience and opinion in my decision making as an umpire when judging danger. ;)
     
  13. Gingerbread

    Gingerbread FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,524
    Likes Received:
    434
    If the goalie is unprotected (say back to play, helmet off etc) then allowing a forward to shoot, especially at lower levels where they may not have the skill to flick it over the goalie and are more inclined to just whack it is dangerous to the keeper (potential spin injury, brain damage etc) so you should stop play immediately. However, the attack should not be disadvantaged from a good position just because of circumstances beyond their control. If you give say a bully outside the D, you are setting up for goalies to just roll over or "lose" their helmet to stop forwards shooting. It's not a perfect solution but would you rather take a hit to unguarded body parts or have play stopped for safety?
     
  14. Krebsy

    Krebsy FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2014
    Messages:
    1,986
    Likes Received:
    768
    Location:
    Bristol
    I don't disagree with the principle of what you are saying, but the goalkeeper (GK) does not deserve a penalty corner (PC) as the GK has broken no rule. Players are entitled to position themselves as they wish. I agree that play with has the potential to injure a player such as this sort of situation should be stopped by an umpire, but it could equally be argued that players should not play towards vulnerable parts of players.
    If a field player was prone on the ground and another player actively sought to drive the ball into the prone player, there would be a foul because of the prone player can be deemed from getting an advantage from their body playing the ball. However this is not the case with a GK and a GK is entitled to play/block the ball with any part of their body.

    Therefore whilist I share your principle that this is dangerous and a good umpire will identify them, but I do not share your appraisal that a PC is appropriate. It is equally arguable that the forward is creating the danger as the GK.
    The GK has committed no foul, the forward has played the ball in a way which leads to danger. If anything, (and I am not 100% sure about this either) it's a free hit to the defence.
     
  15. sanabas

    sanabas FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Messages:
    2,643
    Likes Received:
    989
    If I'm blowing the whistle early because I don't trust the players to do things safely, then in this case I'll call PC. Because the goalie has played the ball in a way that is likely to lead to danger. They HAVE committed a foul, even if it would all turn out foul-free and fine if everyone is sensible. Exactly the same as a rebound popping up into the air in the circle. If everyone is sensible and lets it land, there's no actual foul. But because I don't trust the players at that level to be so sensible, I penalise the person who lifted it for playing it in a way likely to lead to danger.

    You could maybe argue a bully, on the grounds it's a situation where play needs to be stopped but nobody has offended. But I think a PC is certainly fairer, and justified because the keeper created the danger by losing their helmet or landing in a dangerous position.

    Just because I'm laying on the ground and the forward is hitting it from 1m away, that doesn't mean I'm just relaxing on the turf, not expecting the hit. If I'm on the ground, I am still looking to make active saves. I am still positioning myself to be able to react as much as possible. I am still watching the ball, and still 'body tense expecting the hit' just as much as I am when on my feet. I'm not a non-keeper, but you're right, I can't grasp the concept that when I leave my feet I stop being able to react, stop paying attention. If you're keeping like that, you're doing it wrong, and need to work on your ground/scrambling skills.
     

Share This Page