interesting Youtube stuff

Yep - If I remember rightly, the FIH (or someone from the FIH) has explicitly stated that this video is wrong.

Ithink I can see the difference with regard to illegal/legal forehand hits. On the one hand we have the use of the forehand made with a sweeping and therefore safe action unless it happens to lift and cause danger. On the hand, we have the deliberate HIT from a short backlift that is probably (though i agree not necessarily) going to lift and it is this action and not the former that the FIH is trying to prevent.

John, that's not correct. The prohibition against forehand edge hits is regardless of whether danger actually occurs, because the manner in which the skill is executed makes it extremely difficult for players to determine whether the hit is going to raise and in which direction it may go. When the rule was issued last year, the FIH posted some commentary on the Rules section of the WorldHockey site that I believe clears up this confusion and declares the intended effect of the rule conclusively:

Unfortunately, the commentary is no longer on the site but I do have a .pdf "printout" of the page dated 09.09.06 that I will email to anyone interested.

Roger Webb (HRB) has confirmed that the conclusion reached in this video is likely not correct because it appears (although it's not definitive because the pace of the swing is disguised somewhat by the video) that it's a hard hit. A sweep, regardless of how low the backswing is to the ground, is defined as a hit in the rule book. Case closed.

you could always look at this area where we have recently discussed this subject yet again.

From my position as victim of umpires. It really doesnt matter what any one person states or even if they are correct or not. If the person who is umpiring my game thinks it is a foul, it is. (even if only for that game) I respect this guy for trying to educate umpires but do disaggre with his ideas in a couple of areas.

ANIMAL

I disagree with someone who wants to educate people with an illegal tactic. It makes our job as umpires more difficult when misinterpretations get passed throughout our local or national regions, we then have to re-educate people as to the correct rules otherwise eventually we will end up in anarchy due to players not knowing what to expect from game to game and in this situation I will be fully sympathetic with their plight

Huh? ??? :baffled:

i can raise the ball with a number of techniques, none of which use the back of the stick making contact with the ball

paul I deleted the post yoiu referred too because I had it wrong, I mis read the video.

Yes.
But I was referring to using the edge of the stick. If you use the stick face down and hit with the edge the ball will not rise, unless there is some involvement of the back of the stick.

Right. Well, we've argued (and I think established) that the video does not get it right, so it does not help consistency amongst umpires.

If you have one umpire who believes in something like that video doing your game one week, and then someone like me who believes otherwise, you've got two different interpretations by umpires who both believe they are in the right and will not be entertaining suggestions from players otherwise. From a player's perspective, that must be the very defintion of frustration.

i agree with you Deegum if you are using stick, flatedge down and striking ball you must in someway use back of stick. Having been coached this method by an East of England coach, although struggling to understand why (IMO always was illegal) Or is this what makes higher end coaches (trying to push rules to the limit) lol

I thought that was a make of car.

I agree with you red about this it grates on me too also, im sure on the majority(well hopefully anyway) too