Conduct of play GC + PC not PS

Discussion in 'Outdoor Umpiring Questions' started by Gingerbread, Jul 10, 2017.

  1. Gingerbread

    Gingerbread FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,586
    Likes Received:
    476
    Context - Women Hockey World League, India vs South Africa, even game, fairly played, finished 0-0 with 1 GC each.

    I've tried to get a video of it but none seem to be on youtube or the FIH site

    Situation - attacker (SA) running at pace along back line into D, defender (Ind) is behind attack to the left. Defender tackles from behind, takes stick and legs and brings attacker down. Decision is PC + GC.

    To me, if you're giving a card in the D for a tackle you're saying it was intentional, thus PS should be given.

    12.4 A penalty stroke is awarded:
    b) for an intentional offence in the circle by a defender against an opponent who has possession of the ball or an opportunity to play the ball


    If PC it suggests not deliberate so no card. Remember this is a fair game, no cards for India until then and no big warnings

    12.3 A penalty corner is awarded:
    a)) for an offence by a defender in the circle which does not prevent the probable scoring of a goal


    Would you give a PC + GC for an offence against a person with the ball in the D?


    As an aside, the commentators on BT Sport were fairly poor as they didn't know the rules properly - male one mentioned PS and female one said no as she seemed unaware the PS doesn't need to be for preventing a probable goal and they make a couple of references in the 30 minutes I saw to PLAYERS having to move 5m before the ball goes into the D in the 23m.
     
  2. redumpire

    redumpire FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,493
    Likes Received:
    2,642
    PS for me.
     
  3. careeman

    careeman FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2013
    Messages:
    566
    Likes Received:
    451
    And me.
    12.4b sums it up perfectly.

    As a barometer of sorts if the same foul occurred in the 23m would you go PC.
    If yes then it's deemed deliberate so the fact in now happens in the D raises the penalty to PS as per 12.4b.
     
    CrazyDoesntFeelPain likes this.
  4. sanabas

    sanabas FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Messages:
    2,707
    Likes Received:
    1,042
    Haven't seen it. Would expect card in D means PS for sure, and card in 23 means PC.
     
  5. GK13

    GK13 FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2012
    Messages:
    838
    Likes Received:
    470
    Not all cards in the 23 = PC, though, do they? IIRC, something like dissent might carry a card penalty, but wouldn't necessarily result in a 'team' penalty, ie PC.
     
  6. Gingerbread

    Gingerbread FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,586
    Likes Received:
    476
    Talking about fouls by teams, rather than the odd individual penalty, but for a foul worthy of a card in the 23 should be a PC yes
     
    GK13 likes this.
  7. sanabas

    sanabas FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Messages:
    2,707
    Likes Received:
    1,042
    I meant card for foul during the play, anything that carries a team penalty. e.g. bad tackle, not 5, etc. Same deal inside the circle. Mouth off at umpire, I wouldn't expect PC to become PS, or FHA to become PC, or even FHD to turn into FHA when defender says something after they've defused the attacking opportunity.
     
    GK13 likes this.
  8. UmpireHockey.com

    UmpireHockey.com FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    70
    An intentional breach by the defense inside the 23 but outside the circle = PC.
     
  9. Diligent

    Diligent FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2007
    Messages:
    4,153
    Likes Received:
    901
    Location:
    Hampshire (South Coast of England)
    Except... there is Rule 12.5: If there is another offence or misconduct before the awarded penalty has been taken:
    a a more severe penalty may be awarded
    b a personal penalty may be awarded
    c the penalty may be reversed if the subsequent offence was by the team first awarded the penalty.

    It is quite common (and correct), especially at lower levels (where cards tend to stay in pocket), to upgrade to a PC for the defence mouthing off in the 23. That said, it has been regarded as incorrect (too severe) to upgrade a PC to a PS - the umpire is expected to get the yellow out, and leave it as a PC.

    But for the playing offence of the OP, it needed a PS to match the card.
     
    GK13 likes this.
  10. GK13

    GK13 FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2012
    Messages:
    838
    Likes Received:
    470
    Hi @Diligent; yes, I quite agree - I've seen it happen a lot! Can you explain the justification for upgrading a FHA to a PC inside the 23 for mouthing off in the 23, though?

    I only ask because I've been criticized by an assessor in the past for doing exactly that! The advice given to me the time was that dissent should have been punishable by a personal penalty and that applying a team penalty (i.e. PC) for dissent was too severe.

    Is the argument that 'dissent as an escalation' can result in a PC, although 'dissent in isolation' would only draw a card?
     
  11. Gingerbread

    Gingerbread FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,586
    Likes Received:
    476
    Lower level wise, the players are more likely to "internally discipline" a mouthy player on their side if he's giving away PCs for arguing about FH decisions because the PC is a much better chance of scoring than a FH in the 23m which solves the problem, you can always card afterwards if they keep doing it. There is also a degree of leniency as players may not know the rules at all or may not be aware what you have seen, especially if they aren't used to good umpires.

    At the higher levels a personal penalty is probably a better for the opposition as they are more capable of taking advantage of the extra man and it's probably the way you will be coached as well as dissent is seen as a big no-no (e.g. you can't give a 2xYC=temporary red for dissent like you can for say stick tackling)
     
  12. sanabas

    sanabas FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Messages:
    2,707
    Likes Received:
    1,042
    Common, maybe.
    Not incorrect according to the rulebook, sure.
    But the right call to make? No, I don't think so.

    The very fact that cards tend to stay in the pocket in the cases you're talking about shows that the umpire can do a better job. I'd argue that upgrading FHA to PC for a player mouthing off is poor umpiring, and especially poor umpiring if there isn't a card. If the dissent involves hitting the ball away, otherwise stopping the attack from taking their FH quickly, or actually getting in the umpire's face and stopping them from doing their job, then sure, upgrade to PC. But for just saying something GC- (or YC-) worthy and not holding the game up, I'd say much better umpiring to just card them at the next break in play.
     
    GK13 and Ravennghorde like this.
  13. johnreiss

    johnreiss FHF Top Player

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2006
    Messages:
    707
    Likes Received:
    31
    Location:
    teesside
    just remember a ps cannot be given unless it denies an attacker possession or likely possession. An extreme example would be a defender on rhs of the circle punches an attacker when the ball is on the other side of the d. Definite red card for the miscreant but you cannot upgrade to a PS
     
  14. Gingerbread

    Gingerbread FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,586
    Likes Received:
    476
    Er that's not the rule John

    Any deliberate offence against someone who has the ball or is fouled as they try and play the ball is a PS
     
  15. GK13

    GK13 FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2012
    Messages:
    838
    Likes Received:
    470
    I think that, in John's hypothetical example, the person punched isn't in possession of the ball; I think that was the point he was making.
     
  16. Gingerbread

    Gingerbread FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,586
    Likes Received:
    476
    His hypothetical is fine but his interpretation of the rule isn't
     
    Ravennghorde likes this.
  17. Diligent

    Diligent FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2007
    Messages:
    4,153
    Likes Received:
    901
    Location:
    Hampshire (South Coast of England)
    ... but only subtly wrong. As you (@Gingerbread) say, "in" possession, rather than "deny" possession.

    And right that a card for an off-the-ball offence in the circle can be just a PC.
     
  18. Gingerbread

    Gingerbread FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,586
    Likes Received:
    476
    I'd disagree there, John is saying you can't give a PS unless the foul denies them possession or likely possession of the ball. The rule says ANY intentional foul against a player with possession or likely possession is a PS, regardless of whether it denies them possession or likely possession - you could punch a player in the face or trip them up and if they keep the ball and continue it's still a PS even though they haven't been denied possession
     
  19. Diligent

    Diligent FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2007
    Messages:
    4,153
    Likes Received:
    901
    Location:
    Hampshire (South Coast of England)
    I understood @johnreiss' example to be an offence off the ball, unrelated to the player in possession.
    i suspect he meant a cardable offence in play would be a PS, but misquoted the rule.
    Even if the attack retained possession, it should be a PS, on the basis you don't play advantage on a PS offence.
     
    GK13 likes this.
  20. Gingerbread

    Gingerbread FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,586
    Likes Received:
    476
    I agree on the PS not advantage in 99% of cases, certainly for deliberate fouls, I just think it's important as FHF is quite a resource of knowledge, to be very specific on the rules when we are giving advice out that umpires may see and pick up on
     

Share This Page