FIH publishes Rulebook for 2013

Discussion in '2013 Official FIH Rules Book' started by keely, Aug 31, 2012.

  1. keely

    keely FHF Legend

    Messages:
    10,373
    From the FIH:

    Read more here.

    As in past editions, small changes to the Rules have been highlighted by vertical mark-up placed next to amended text. Perhaps this thread can focus on any discussions on those issues, as opposed to the "own goal" and direct lift off the free hit which we've covered here and here.
     
  2. redumpire

    redumpire FHF Legend Staff Member

    Messages:
    8,586
    And here are ALL the other rule changes, (i.e. all the rule changes excluding the "own goal" & the direct lift from a free hit, both of which are worded exactly as per the FIH letter of 27 June announcing the changes; I have also excluded the stick reg changes as they would take up too much space here, but they, too, are exactly as anticipated):

    -o-

    New 2.4 (guidance):
    Leaving and re-entering the field as part of play (eg when a defender puts on a face mask at a penalty corner) takes place at any appropriate part of the field.

    Previous:
    [not in 2011 rules]

    -o-

    New 3.3
    Captains must wear a distinctive arm-band or similar distinguishing article on an upper arm or shoulder or over the upper part of sock.

    Previous:
    Captains must wear a distinctive arm-band or similar distinguishing article on an upper arm or shoulder.

    -o-

    New 5.1 (guidance)
    Other periods and interval may be agreed by both teams except as specified in regulations for particular competitions.

    If time expires just before an umpire would otherwise have made a decision, umpires are permitted to make that decision immediately after the end of the first period or the match.

    If an incident arises immediately before the end of the first period (half) or the end of the match which requires review by the umpires, the review may be conducted even though time has subsequently been completed and signaled. The review should take place immediately and action taken to revert to and correct the situation as appropriate.

    Previous:

    Other periods and interval may be agreed by both teams except as specified in regulations or particular competitions.

    If an incident arises immediately before the end of the first period (half) or the end of the match which requires review by the umpires, the review may be conducted even though time has subsequently been completed and signalled. The review should take place immediately and action taken to revert to and correct the situation if appropriate.

    -o-

    New 6.5.a
    a bully is taken close to the location of the ball when play was stopped but not within 15 metres of the backline and not within 5 metres of the circle.

    Previous:
    a bully is taken close to the location of the ball when play was stopped but not within 15 metres of the backline

    -o-

    New 13.9.a:
    The penalty stroke is completed when: a goal is scored

    Previous:
    The penalty stroke is completed when: a goal is scored or awarded

    -o-

    New 14.1.b (guidance):
    At an international match, a green card indicates a temporary suspension of 2 minutes of playing time.

    Previous:
    [not in 2011 rules]

    -o-

    Field and Equipment Specifications

    New 1.3.j:
    penalty spots 150 mm in diameter marked in front of the centre of each goal with the centre of each spot 6.475 metres from the outer edge of the goal-line.

    Previous:
    penalty spots 150 mm in diameter marked in front of the centre of each goal with the centre of each spot 6.40 metres from the inner edge of the goal-line.

    -o-

    It's also worth noting that the introduction to the rules book states:
    Expect to see some emphasis on those issues in pre-season briefings.
     
  3. keely

    keely FHF Legend

    Messages:
    10,373
    Wow, I just finished writing up almost the exact same summary. :)
     
  4. redumpire

    redumpire FHF Legend Staff Member

    Messages:
    8,586
    Great minds thinking alike... or fools seldom differing?! :D

    It's interesting (to me, anyway!) that the new guidance to 5.1 and the change to rule 6.5.a exactly reflect issues that have previously been discussed on FHF...
     
  5. Trig

    Trig FHF Star Player

    Messages:
    423
    FHF leads the way.........
     
  6. redumpire

    redumpire FHF Legend Staff Member

    Messages:
    8,586
    My understanding of the situation in England is that the new rules are effective as from tomorrow (1 Sept 2012), except the new stick regs which will not be implemented until 1 Sept 2013. However, final clarification of the latter point is still awaited.
     
  7. Ballingdon

    Ballingdon FHF Top Player

    Messages:
    273
    Just-In-Time publishing.. love it!
     
  8. Ballingdon

    Ballingdon FHF Top Player

    Messages:
    273


    But... despite the emphasis on consistency on page 6, etc they didnt change wording around 9.7 and definition of "shot at goal" . A hard hit into the circle deflected upwards off a defender's stick towards goal is (a) by definition, not a "shot at goal" AND (b) hence cannot be stopped above shoulder height according to 9.7 .
    "...except that defenders are permitted to use the stick to stop or deflect a shot at goal at any height. "


    So if stopped above shoulder height is.. a PS? and a card? Someone just tell me .. it will happen at lower level . Just for consistency.
     
  9. keely

    keely FHF Legend

    Messages:
    10,373
    You're right, they didn't change the definition of "shot at goal" to include deflections by defenders that could result in a goal.

    For clarity, the definition still reads:

    And the full text of Rule 9.7:

    It would be ridiculous to penalize defenders for stopping potential goals above their shoulder just because initially an attacker didn't shoot the ball inside the circle. It makes no sense.

    Without reservation, I believe this is a true mistake which leads to incongruous results and confusion and needs to be fixed. I'm hoping that the oversight will be remedied very soon, and I'm writing an email to a contact at the FIH immediately.

    In the meantime, do you think that if you permit a defender to stop a ball from going in their net (or almost going into their net) using a stick above their shoulder that has not been shot by an attacker inside the circle but has been deflected by a fellow defender (or perhaps mis-trapped so it's their own deflection), the entire pitch is going to erupt in complaints that it should be penalized with a PS and YC because the definition of "Shot at goal" as stipulated in the Rules has not been satisfied?
     
  10. Jacob0507

    Jacob0507 FHF Top Player

    Messages:
    165
    For the vast majority common sense will no doubt prevail, however where loopholes/ gaps in the rules exist they can be exploited, Ric Charlesworth subbing on his dragflicker during a video appeal for a PC at the World Cup comes to mind. If this situation happened at an FIH tournament was noticed by a rule geek on the attacking team and referred would the umpires have any choice but to award a stroke?
     
  11. keely

    keely FHF Legend

    Messages:
    10,373
    Agreed, which is why I've sent an email to the FIH. I'm very concerned that the change to 8.1 has been incorporated as a variation to the Rules of Hockey in the Outdoor Tournament Regulations, so have been in force for the two World League events that have already taken place, and will be of the Champions Challenge (w), Champions Trophy and remaining World League events going forward. I know the age-group EHF competitions opted out of using the new 8.1 until next year.
     
  12. harvi

    harvi FHF Starter

    Messages:
    47
    A hard hit/deflection from outside the circle has never been classed as a shot at goal.Thus action whithin the cicle defines the status of a ball heading towards the goal.Previously an attacker must touch it,now anyone touching/deflecting the ball changes it's status from a loose ball to a shot on goal.All regular rules apply.
     
  13. Daniel Eshuis

    Daniel Eshuis FHF Newbie

    Messages:
    8
    To quote the rule above:

    If a defender plays the ball, it does not change the status of play to a shot on goal, as they are not "an attacker attempting to score".

    The effect may be the same by either team in terms of whether a goal is valid, but the definition still says "attacker"
     
  14. keely

    keely FHF Legend

    Messages:
    10,373
    Sorry harvi, there's just no getting around the contradiction between 8.1 and the "shot at goal" definition.

    I've made contact and the FIH are looking at it right now.
     
  15. Sephiroth

    Sephiroth FHF Starter

    Messages:
    31
    Just to get some things clear.. According to the rules, during a penalty corner, defenders on the line are NOT allowed to prevent a dragflick going in the goal, above shoulder height? So pretty much: almost everyone will take a shot at the guy on the post to get more penalty strokes. That would be a killer to the game (looking for a foul in the D seems like children playing now)
     
  16. keely

    keely FHF Legend

    Messages:
    10,373
    NONONONO.

    Please, go back and read this post above. You're completely misreading everything we're talking about here.
     
  17. Sephiroth

    Sephiroth FHF Starter

    Messages:
    31
    This probably caused my confusion. Pretty much that the 2nd bold line is just filler text, because a defender can never hit a ball above his shoulder, to stop or deflect a shot at goal. I would say that the FIH can skip the PS part, as it can never happen, right?
     
  18. keely

    keely FHF Legend

    Messages:
    10,373
    The second instance of text you bolded refers to the fact that defenders can only stop or deflect a shot at goal by using their stick above their shoulder, and cannot outright hit (for example, baseball swing) at that shot with their stick above their shoulder. If they do, that's an intentional foul and deemed a PS.

    All of that is ancillary to what we're talking about in this thread, which is that now a ball could be a threat to score when hit by an attacker outside the circle and then deflects off a defender inside the circle. Under the current definition of a "shot at goal", only a ball that is hit by an attacker inside the circle can be legally stopped by a defender using their stick over shoulder height.

    This is all because of the introduction of the "own goal" rule and how it's worded, and how the "shot at goal" definition is worded. Nothing has changed with the wording of 9.7 (as of this moment). Defenders can still stop dragflicks above their shoulder legally, just like they could before.

    Do you understand now?

    ----------

    Back to the issue that Ballingdon raised, I think it's more likely the rules people will look at a small amendment to 9.7 rather than change the definition of a "shot at goal" as other provisions rely on a "shot at goal" originating from inside the circle.

    As has been discussed here and here, the prohibition in 9.9 against intentionally raising hits except for shots at goal help reduce danger. If the definition of a "shot at goal" was modified in some way to include attackers playing the ball in the direction of the goal from outside the circle, the protection of 9.9 would be decreased.

    Also, 13.3(k) uses the definition to mandate the height at which the ball must cross the goal line if the first "shot at goal" is a hit. Changing the definition would also reduce safety as above.

    If 9.7 was modified to allow defenders to also stop a ball above shoulder height that was played towards goal by a defender within the circle, I think that would do the trick.
     
  19. Sephiroth

    Sephiroth FHF Starter

    Messages:
    31
    Getting the picture now with the baseball swing reference, thanks. I've never read the rule phrased like that, so it got me a bit confused.
    The issue with the definition is crystal clear, probably something they have overlooked at the FIH. Although I can't really see it happening that a defender blocks a shot above shoulder height, that was hit by the attacking team outside the circle and touched by a defender inside the circle.
    At top level, the rules should be solid so it is something for them to review. For the moment, it's best to discuss the define 'shot at goal' with both captains and umpires to include defenders deflecting it, untill the rule has been changed (because deep down, we know they probably want it that way). And if the umpires are strict, you know beforehand and if you still do it, np to accept the PS and YC.
     
  20. G

    G FHF Legend

    Messages:
    1,354
    Just change the wording to something like;

    'A defender may play the ball above shoulder height to directly prevent a goal...'

    or something similar...

    Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
     

Share This Page